workiva_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely repeats the action ('List documents') without disclosing any behavioral nuances such as read-only status, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. The example filter helps, but that pertains to parameters rather than behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose and two parameter explanations. Every element earns its place, with no filler or redundant content.

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 tool has a simple scope with an output schema, but the description leaves gaps: no mention of which workspace is referenced, no explicit statement that this is a read-only listing operation, and no details on default pagination despite max_results being present. It is adequate for basic use but lacks context an agent might need for confident invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters. For 'filter,' it gives a concrete OData example ('name contains ACFR'), which adds meaningful usage context beyond the bare schema. 'max_results' is also described as 'Maximum results to return,' providing clarity.

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 'List documents in the workspace,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like workiva_list_workspaces or workiva_list_organization_users. It unambiguously identifies the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it reference any of the sibling list tools.

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