list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load: it discloses the exact information returned and the important ecosystem-level trait that all other tools operate on the ACTIVE document. It doesn't state read-only/safety expectations explicitly, but for a listing tool the residual risk is low.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the enumerated return content comes first, followed by the usage cue. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description covers the key cross-tool behavior. Minor gaps: no mention of how it relates to activate_document or close_unsaved when unsaved changes are flagged.

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 single 'instance' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including a reference to list_instances), and the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List open documents') and enumerates the returned fields (name, path, type, unsaved changes) plus the active-document marker. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_instances, activate_document, or save_document without ambiguity.

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?

'Tools act on the ACTIVE document — check here when juggling several parts' gives a concrete trigger for when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., activate_document) or state when not to use it, keeping it short of a 5.

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