list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (full paths) and the specific file type (.docx), which goes beyond the tool name. It implies a read-only listing operation, though it does not explicitly mention limitation such as recursive vs. non-recursive behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a purpose statement plus a return-value detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it defines what is listed, why to use it, and what it returns (full paths). There is no ambiguity that would prevent an agent from invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'directory' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, simply restating that the operation occurs within a directory/folder without providing extra syntax or constraints.

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 verb (Lists), the resource (.docx files), and the scope (a directory). It is distinct from sibling tools like read_document, search_document, get_document_metadata, and resolve_document, focusing on discovery rather than content operations.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to discover what Word documents are available in a specific folder.' It does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous and appropriate for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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