List QA documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains that ref is an opaque, extensionless identifier (not a disk filename), that glob case-insensitively filters on id, and that paging defaults to 25/caps at 100 with out-of-range values clamped rather than errored. Read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not stated, and no permission/auth details are given.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what is returned before the ref caveat and paging mechanics. Every sentence adds real information, though the single long paragraph is slightly heavy.

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-value explanation is unnecessary; the description instead covers the filtering, paging, and ref semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. Complete for a filtered, paginated list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: glob is explained with a concrete example, case-insensitivity, the None default, and the empty-string edge case; max_results/offset are documented with default page size, cap, and clamping behavior.

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 (list) and resource (QA documents) and enumerates the fields returned (ids, titles, statuses, refs). It clearly distinguishes this multi-document listing from the single-document get_qa sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without reading schemas.

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?

Frames the use case ('for context before addressing one by id') and explicitly routes ref-based retrieval to the get_qa tool ('use it with the get_qa tool instead'). Clear context and one named alternative, though it does not spell out when not to use the tool.

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