documents_list

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'List documents' and mentions filters, but fails to mention pagination (limit/offset), sorting, default behavior, or that this is a read-only operation. Key behavioral aspects like how 'other criteria' map to parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to parse. The two-sentence format is efficient, though the phrase 'or other criteria' adds little information and could be more specific. It is appropriately sized, but not maximally informative.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination, sorting, return value structure, or how this list operation differs from search. The lack of any guidance on typical usage or edge cases leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds minimal semantic value by naming 'collection, user' which maps to collectionId and userId, but 'other criteria' is vague and does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb (List), resource (documents), and scope (filterable). It is unambiguous and appropriate for a listing tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like documents_search or documents_search_titles, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as documents_search, documents_children, or documents_drafts. The phrase 'or other criteria' vaguely implies broad filtering but does not specify use cases or exclusions.

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