list_documents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results come from an independent native engine and that geometry units are mm/degrees/kg, plus a hint about 'verified measurements and error evidence'. It does not say whether documents means currently open documents or files on disk, nor anything about ordering, paging or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, which is good. However, the middle sentence about mm/degrees/kg reads as boilerplate carried over from geometry tools and does not earn its place in a zero-argument listing tool, diluting focus.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description bears full responsibility for explaining what comes back, and it does not: the shape of a listed document, whether it is open documents or saved files, and what 'error evidence' contains are all left undefined. The unit note does not compensate for this gap.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The unit sentence is not a parameter concern and adds no param meaning, but no gap exists to penalize.

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 verb+resource pair 'List documents' is explicit, and the engine context ('independent native SOLIDWORKS engine') tells the agent which backend serves it. It stops short of distinguishing the tool from nearby list_* siblings such as list_bodies, list_features, list_dimensions and list_components, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone what a 'document' is versus a body or feature.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many other list_* and open_*/activate_document tools. 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' gestures at a use case but is too vague to act on, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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