List documents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about the document categories and the workspace scoping, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or whether only metadata is returned—leaving some ambiguity. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, this feels adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope efficiently, with parenthetical examples of document types. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to clarity. It is an exemplary model of concise, structured tool guidance.

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 low-complexity list operation with one optional parameter, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is highly complete. It names the document categories, which helps the agent set expectations, and the schema covers parameter behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly point to 'get_document' for retrieving a specific document, but that is more of a usage-guideline nuance than a completeness shortfall for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter, workspace_id, is described as 'Workspace id; defaults to the first employment workspace.' The tool description adds 'current workspace,' which aligns but doesn't introduce new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds little extra semantic value, hence the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('documents'), and the scope ('current workspace'), and elaborates with document categories (statements, plan docs, tax forms). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_document', which retrieves a single document. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 makes the use case obvious—listing all documents in the workspace—and the workspace scope is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'get_document' or mention when to prefer one over the other. It also doesn't mention checking 'list_workspaces' if a specific workspace ID is needed, though this is implied. Despite this, an agent would reasonably know to use this tool when a document list is required; a missing explicit exclusion prevents a perfect score.

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