reed_list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: the exact return fields (documents with id, status, chunks, etc.), the paging scheme (total/limit/offset), and the status-dependent searchability behavior—crucial for understanding why a document might not appear in search.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with a clear purpose statement, then lists the output fields in a structured way, and closes with an important caveat about searchability. Every sentence adds distinct value—no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a read-only list tool, this description is fully complete: it specifies the output schema (all fields), paging semantics, and the status meaning critical for downstream use. It also distinguishes itself from siblings in context, covering all necessary guidance for a two-parameter simple 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 already describes both parameters (limit as page size with max 500, offset as rows to skip) with 100% coverage. The description only mentions paging generically ('total/limit/offset for paging'), adding no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('what the reed index knows about'), with a concise summary of output structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings: while search/ask address content retrieval, this tool exposes document metadata and status, and mentions that non-ready documents won't appear in search results, implying its role in inspecting the index.

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 implies when to use this tool: to see all documents and their statuses, especially when a document hasn't appeared in search yet ('Only documents with status ready are searchable... will not appear in search results yet'). It mentions paging, which helps for large result sets, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like reed_search or reed_get_document for content or single-document needs.

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