List Documents

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: headless services keep their own registry where drawing_new/drawing_open append entries instead of replacing, live mode maps to AutoCAD's Documents collection, and an empty backend yields an empty list with no refusals.

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 return fields are front-loaded in the first line and the behavioral notes follow in compact sentences. The trailing 'Pack: settings · lean: no.' is unexplained internal jargon that costs a bit of clarity, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is technically redundant, and readOnlyHint covers safety, yet the description still contributes the headless-vs-live registry semantics that an agent needs to interpret the list correctly. Nothing critical appears to be missing for a zero-parameter 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs compensating for. The description's mention of list-entry fields is return-value detail, not parameter semantics, and does not detract.

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 ('Every open document') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent immediately knows this is an enumeration of open documents rather than a mutation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like document_activate and document_close, which it explicitly names.

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 explains the headless registry model and that document_activate chooses the target of later tools, which implies when this list is useful, but it never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule versus related tools. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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