List my documents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope baseline. The description adds useful context by specifying the document types (CV/resume and other uploads) and that they are attached to the authenticated account. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, but it does not disclose any pagination, ordering, or response size behavior. Given the low bar set by the read-only annotation, this is a solid 4.

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, efficiently structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key output detail (ids and metadata). There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to elaborate on the exact return format. Nothing an agent would need to know to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 the description cannot be expected to clarify parameter meaning. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a 4 is the baseline for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource (documents attached to the authenticated Repovive account), and specifies the returned data (ids and metadata). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this tool from any sibling that might handle documents, none of which exist in the sibling list.

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 clearly implies the use case: when an agent needs to view the documents uploaded by the logged-in user. There are no alternative tools for listing documents, so no exclusions are necessary. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to retrieve user uploads' or provide any contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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