appwrite_list_documents_paginated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully identifies the cursor-based pagination strategy as a key behavioral trait, but omits safety classification (read-only), rate limiting concerns, or the structure of the returned payload.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal metadata that adds no value for the agent, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), a single sentence is insufficient. The description lacks critical context for the hierarchical identifiers (site/database/collection), cursor mechanics, and filter syntax required to successfully invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 9 parameters, requiring significant compensation from the description. While 'cursor-based pagination' loosely maps to the cursor parameters, it fails to explain critical parameters like 'filters' (format/syntax), 'site', or 'order_attribute', leaving most inputs undocumented.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List documents'), the resource type, and the distinguishing mechanism ('cursor-based pagination'). However, while it implies suitability for large datasets, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'appwrite_list_documents'.

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 phrase 'for efficient large dataset traversal' provides implied guidance on when to use this tool (large datasets), but it lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives like 'appwrite_list_documents' or exclusions for when NOT to use it.

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