list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or any limitations. The description focuses on what the tool lists but not on how it behaves (e.g., rate limits, response structure).

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 well-structured with a clear main purpose, followed by examples and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and informative, though slightly verbose with the bullet points. Could be trimmed but still effective.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides reasonable context about document types and filtering rules. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., pagination metadata) and any behavioral constraints, which are necessary for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the 'exactly one filter' constraint and listing document types, which helps the agent understand parameter usage. However, it does not elaborate on page, per_page, or sort beyond 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 tool lists documents attached to a property, project, or contact, with specific examples of document types. It differentiates well from sibling tools like upload_document and other list/search tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including concrete use cases and the critical instruction to filter by exactly one of property_id, project_id, or client_id. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the positive guidance is strong.

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