list_doc_safelist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the safelist after scanning and explains rejection behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the name. Although it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, the passive phrasing implies a read-only operation.

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: the first states the purpose, the second adds context about return value and rejection. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning 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?

Given no parameters and existing output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: what it returns and the implications for upload. No additional information is needed for this simple list operation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, with no parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 all MIME types currently on the document upload safelist,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (safelist). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_doc_safelist and remove_doc_safelist by indicating a read-only 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 provides clear context: it returns the full set of permitted file types after Magika scanning and notes that unlisted types are rejected. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context around upload rejection implies usage for checking allowed types before uploading.

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