list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and return format ('relative paths'), but doesn't mention important behaviors like whether it's read-only, potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), performance implications of recursion, or pagination. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly addressing parameters.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't provide enough context about how to use the parameters, what errors might occur, or detailed return format beyond 'relative paths'.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'docs directory or a subdirectory' which hints at the 'path' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the 3 parameters ('path', 'basePath', 'recursive') or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('markdown documents in the docs directory or a subdirectory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_documents' by specifying it returns 'all' documents rather than filtered results, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-like siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or 'read_document'. It mentions the scope ('docs directory or a subdirectory') but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

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