Get client documents list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the clarifying scope that documents are 'uploaded', which is useful. It doesn't disclose return format or pagination, but with read-only annotations the bar is lower and no contradiction exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', zero filler. The parenthetical clarifier earns its place and the description is appropriately sized.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool, the description plus annotations fully cover the main context. No output schema exists, but the return type (list of documents) is implied. Minor missing details like pagination or ordering are not critical for this simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'uuid' with description 'Client uuid'. The tool description does not add additional param semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since schema already documents it adequately.

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 'List the documents attached to a client (what has been uploaded)' clearly specifies the verb (List), the resource (documents attached to a client), and the scope (uploaded), distinguishing it from siblings like upload_document and add_documentation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to retrieve the list of uploaded documents for a given client. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with upload_document/add_documentation is evident from sibling context.

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