monday_list_docs

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

The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior is already declared by annotations, so the description's burden is lower. It does add context about authority routing and that 'effect' must be read and is verified by Spring. However, the approval_ref note about 'resuming a write' is confusing in a read-only listing tool, and no behavioral details such as pagination or result shape are disclosed.

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 text is reasonably compact and the Args list is easy to scan, but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name and the parameter lines are boilerplate rather than tool-specific. It is concise but sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 7-parameter connector wrapper with no schema descriptions, the description gives only generic routing and identity context and never explains what the operation lists, what arguments it accepts, or how it relates to other Monday tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the core operational behavior is still 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does label every parameter with a short semantic: project_id is an authenticated Project UUID, connector_account_ref is a project-bound alias, idempotency_key is a stable business-action identity, etc. However, the core 'arguments' parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', leaving the actual Monday list_docs payload unspecified.

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 'Monday connector operation `list_docs` (platform tool `monday.list_docs`)', which is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name rather than a statement of what the tool does. The second sentence about governed connector authority describes routing, not purpose. It does not explicitly say that the tool lists documents from Monday.com or distinguish it from closely related Monday tools like monday_list_items.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monday_list_boards, monday_list_items, or monday_query_data. The only context provided is the routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority'), which is an operational restriction rather than a usage criterion.

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