document_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral detail beyond annotations: the output is at source-document granularity rather than chunk granularity, which is important for interpreting results correctly.

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?

Two sentences, each adding distinct value: the first defines the tool's result and granularity, the second gives practical use cases. There is no filler and no redundant repetition of annotations or schema.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what is listed, what granularity, and when to call it. The only substantive gap is the collection parameter semantics; safety and output shape are already covered by annotations and the output schema.

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 only required parameter, collection, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description only mentions it obliquely as 'in a collection.' It does not clarify whether the value should be a collection ID or name, how to format it, or how to find valid collections, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists ingested source documents in a collection' and immediately clarifies the granularity as one entry per original file/text/URL, not per chunk. This makes it easy to distinguish from chunk-level tools and from collection-level 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 gives two concrete use cases: inspecting a collection before ingesting more and finding a doc_id for document_delete or get_document. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with tools like collection_info or search, so it misses the explicit exclusion needed for a 5.

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