list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what the output format is (e.g., array of names, IDs, full objects).

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?

Single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without adding length, e.g., specifying what information is returned.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. For a list tool, the agent would benefit from knowing the structure of the returned data (e.g., document IDs, names). It is borderline adequate for a trivial tool but misses details.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but baseline for 0-param tools is 4, as no further explanation is needed beyond the purpose.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('List') and resource ('documents'), indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate from potential sibling tools that might list documents with different scopes or filters, leaving some ambiguity about what 'all available documents' means (IDs, names, 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 tool versus alternatives. Siblings include get_document_base64, get_info, get_properties, etc., but the description provides no context for selecting list_documents over others.

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