List documents of any type

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent with no destructive actions, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context about compendium read-only limitation and default row selection when 'fields' is omitted, which is useful beyond the schema. No contradiction.

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 compact relative to the complexity of a 10-parameter tool. It front-loads the core purpose and the fallback role, then lists the specialized alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter-level behavior is covered in the schema, keeping the description efficient.

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 generic tool with a rich schema (10 params, 100% coverage) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the fallback role, points to alternatives, and gives default behavior. However, it could mention pagination or sorting defaults more explicitly, but the schema covers those. Given the complexity, this is nearly complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds a few behavioral clarifications (e.g., 'Without fields each row shows id, uuid, name, type and folder' and 'compendiums are read only here'), but most parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't significantly augment parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a clear action ('list documents of any type') and specifies the resource (world, parentUuid, compendium). It immediately establishes itself as the generic fallback and distinguishes itself from a long list of specialized siblings, which prevents ambiguity.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Prefer the specialised tools where one fits' and lists them. It also names concrete use cases for this tool (Combat, Cards, Wall, etc.) and notes when to use it for game systems without an adapter. This is excellent routing guidance.

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