proj_list_documents

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the default behavior (uses active project when project_path is None) and the shape of returned items, but omits error conditions, permissions, and whether listing triggers any side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections. Slightly verbose in restating the return dictionary, but no sentence is wasted for a tool of this size.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the default-parameter behavior, and return shape. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from app_list_documents, which would help the agent route correctly.

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 0%, and the description compensates well: it explains that project_path is optional and that None means the active project is used. That adds real meaning beyond the bare 'string/null, default null' schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'List all documents in a project,' scoping it to project context. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling app_list_documents, which also lists documents, so the agent gets no guidance on which to pick from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the note that project_path defaults to the active project. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of the app_list_documents alternative despite the obvious overlap.

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