list_documents

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It lists output fields but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any destructive potential. As a list tool, it's implicitly safe, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 concise: two sentences without filler, clearly structured with purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given an output schema exists (context signal), the description still lists key metadata fields (id, title, type, status, fragment count, creation time), making it complete for a list tool. No gaps.

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 zero parameters, and the description confirms '无参数'. Since schema coverage is 100% and parameters are none, the baseline is 4, and the description adds clear confirmation.

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 all documents and metadata from the current knowledge base, using specific verb '列出' and resource '当前知识库的全部文档及元数据'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_document_content' by focusing on listing all documents.

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 explicitly states when to use: when user asks '知识库里有什么', needs an overview, or before calling get_document_content to obtain document_id. It mentions no parameters. While it provides good context, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling.

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