documents_viewed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing behavioral details like pagination behavior, sorting options, whether authentication is required, or how 'recently viewed' is defined. The schema hints at pagination and sorting, but the description adds no transparency about these behaviors, making it a minimal disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation and earns full marks for conciseness.

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?

Despite the simple description, the tool has five parameters (including pagination) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'viewed', or how pagination works. With no annotations to supplement, the agent lacks crucial context about expected behavior and result structure, making this incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters (sort, limit, offset, nextPath, direction), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics. As per the baseline for full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with additional meaning.

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 'List recently viewed documents' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (documents) with a specific scope (recently viewed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like documents_list and documents_search by focusing on the 'viewed' history. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether these are the current user's viewed documents or system-wide, nor does it mention an alternative tool, so it falls short of the highest score.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as documents_list, documents_search, or documents_starred. The usage is implied by the name and description (use when you need recently viewed documents), but there are no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools, so it earns a middle score.

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