uselink_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating the return fields (id, title, slug, status, timestamps) and the binding to the active PAT. However, it omits pagination behavior, sorting, and explicit read-only safety confirmation, leaving gaps for a list operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output fields. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, return fields, and filtering capabilities. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits essential details like pagination behavior, limit/offset semantics, and does not clarify the relationship to uselink_search_documents. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, with limit and offset lacking descriptions. The description mentions filtering by status and free-text search, but these are already described in the schema. It does not clarify the default or maximum for limit, nor the meaning of offset, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 tool lists documents in the uselink workspace with a specific verb and resource. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, as the sibling uselink_search_documents may also list/search documents, so it doesn't distinguish when to prefer one over the other.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uselink_search_documents. It implies usage for listing and filtering, but does not state exclusions or when a different tool should be chosen.

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