list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only metadata is returned and no content is included, but it does not state read-only behavior, pagination behavior, permissions, or response shape beyond the metadata/content distinction.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by practical usage guidance. There is no wasted text.

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, three-optional-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is that no annotations exist and no output schema is present, so slightly more could be said about the returned metadata or pagination behavior.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'List indexed documents with metadata (no content).' It clearly distinguishes this from content-reading tools by emphasizing that no content is returned, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_documents or search_fuzzy.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: an overview of available files or finding a file by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_documents for content-based search or read_document for file contents.

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