List indexed documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results include chunk counts and sizes and are collection-scoped, which is modest added value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The inventory purpose is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows immediately, with nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what is listed, what comes back (chunk counts and sizes), and when to reach for it. Pagination is handled by the documented limit/offset parameters. Little is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% — limit, offset, uriPrefix and collection are all documented with defaults and constraints in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or interactions, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List documents already indexed in a collection') and adds the returned fields (chunk counts and sizes). It implicitly separates itself from list_collections and search by scoping to indexed documents, but never names a sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use scenarios and names the sibling tools they pair with: pre-search inventory ('before searching') and post-index verification ('confirm an index_paths run covered what you expected'). An agent can route to this tool without inference.

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