list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists documents but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with envelope data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (listing resources associated with an envelope), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what the output entails, making it inadequate for guiding an agent effectively in this environment.

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% description coverage, with 'envelopeId' documented as 'Envelope UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 action ('List') and resource ('documents attached to an envelope'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_envelopes' or 'list_recipients' that might also list items, missing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for listing documents of a specific envelope but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools like 'get_download_url' for accessing document content, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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