list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope ('all documents in the workspace') and the fields surfaced (size, modification time), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, depth/recursion, or whether it includes only currently open documents. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are stated immediately. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters the calling surface is simple. The remaining gap is behavioral: ordering, pagination and recursion are unstated, which matters for a workspace-wide listing.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description does not introduce any confusing claims about inputs.

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 ('List all documents in the workspace') plus the fields returned (size, modification time). It is distinguishable from the object-level siblings like list_objects and document_info, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with document_info, which also concerns a single document's metadata.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus document_info, list_objects, or list_history. The only implicit cue is 'all documents in the workspace', which hints at bulk enumeration, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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