List Documents

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it discloses that headless mode maintains its own registry where drawing_new/drawing_open add entries rather than replacing, that document_activate selects the target, that live mode maps to AutoCAD's Documents collection, and that an empty backend yields an empty list rather than a refusal.

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 front-loaded with the returned fields and then adds behavioral nuance, which is efficient. The trailing 'Pack: settings · lean: no.' is somewhat cryptic and reads like metadata that does not obviously earn its place for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 zero parameters and an output schema already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how the headless registry differs from live AutoCAD, and what happens when no documents exist. Nothing essential is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not clutter itself with parameter details.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Every open document') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also distinguishes the headless registry behavior from the live AutoCAD Documents collection, which separates it from sibling tools like document_activate.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the description explains that document_activate chooses which document later tools target, which hints at a workflow, but it never says 'use this when you need to enumerate open documents' or names an alternative to avoid. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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