doc_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description states what is returned, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, session scoping, or how 'read positions' are calculated. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded and the sentence conveys the tool's purpose and output in a compact, scannable way.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is largely complete: it states scope ('ingested documents') and return fields. However, there is no output schema and no clarification of what 'read positions' means, leaving minor ambiguity. Still, an agent can likely invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description focuses on output rather than inputs, which is appropriate here. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is met.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ingested documents') and names the exact return fields (ids, sizes, read positions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like doc_search, doc_summarize, or doc_ingest.

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 use case is implied by the verb 'List' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as doc_outline or doc_window. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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