list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and the cross-session ID-stability rationale, but discloses nothing about rate limits, ordering, or output shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key purpose and rationale front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed guidance, but structurally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a list tool with two undocumented parameters, the description leaves gaps in pagination mechanics and when to prefer it over sibling list tools.

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 both parameters (limit, offset) are undocumented. The description only mentions '分页' (pagination), which gestures at the two params but doesn't explain their meaning, defaults, or ranges, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (pagination/retrieval) and resource (已导入材料, imported documents) and highlights the key output trait (real IDs). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_input_files or list_parse_jobs.

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?

'避免跨会话猜测 ID' implies the use case (fetching authoritative document IDs so you don't guess across sessions), which is useful implied guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives are provided.

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