list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only and paginated behavior, but does not detail other traits like authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The behavioral transparency is 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?

The description is two sentences, very concise, and directly states core functionality. No unnecessary information, and it front-loads key details (list, paginated, firm-wide, read-only).

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: it lists all documents firm-wide with pagination and no filtering. It is sufficiently complete for a basic read-only list tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'page' and 'page_size' parameters. However, it mentions 'paginated', which hints at their usage. The parameter names and defaults provide some guidance, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'List documents, paginated (firm-wide, read-only)', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document and delete_document by emphasizing it is a read-only list operation.

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 tells when to use this tool (to list all documents firm-wide with pagination) and notes the lack of server-side filter, implying that it is not for filtered queries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides sufficient differentiation.

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