list_salvaged_fragments

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a list operation with optional filtering, but omits critical details such as pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or what happens when no fragments match.

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 very concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is too sparse to be fully effective; it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 vague parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly or what to expect from it.

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 one parameter 'kwargs' with no type or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by query' but does not explain how to represent the query within kwargs, leaving the agent without usable 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'salvaged fragments', indicating the action clearly. It also mentions optional filtering by query. It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_document or analyze_document, which have different purposes.

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, nor any prerequisites or conditions for filtering. It lacks context about its place in the workflow.

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