List designs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful scope ('Every exported document') and the exact returned fields, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a parameterless list operation the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('Every exported document') and then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the full scope and the fields returned. It could be more complete by stating ordering, result count, or list shape, but the annotations and field enumeration cover the main needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively complete. There is no parameter semantics to add, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every exported document') and enumerates the returned fields (docId, file and node name, export time, node count), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like vault_search or vault_get_doc, and the title 'List designs' introduces slight vocabulary ambiguity versus 'exported document'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vault_search, vault_get_doc, or vault_get_node. The phrase 'Every exported document' implies a list-all role, but there are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or routing hints. An agent must infer when to use it from sibling names and the fields listed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.