list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses useful return details: document IDs are file paths for saved files or generated IDs for unsaved files, plus connection status. It implies a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter tool.

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, both earning their place: one states what is returned, and the second gives the actionable usage context. The information is front-loaded with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the key return semantics: document IDs, their meaning for saved versus unsaved files, and connection status. Nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The empty schema is self-explanatory, and the description correctly does not add irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists all Word documents connected to the bridge server. It distinguishes itself from sibling listing tools such as list_presentations and list_workbooks by scoping to Word documents and by explaining the documentId output that other Word tools need.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to find the documentId to pass to other Word tools when multiple documents are open. That gives clear selection guidance, though it does not name or exclude alternative listing tools.

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