List Document Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered; 'never migrates or writes data' is largely a restatement. The genuinely additive disclosure is that legacy pre-3.8.4 data comes back in a separate result for manual recovery, but return shape and pagination are left unaddressed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the flag caveat. No filler; only minor loss is that the legacy note interleaves behavior and parameter explanation in a single clause.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the relationship between docId and workspaceId (are workspace-level definitions scoped by workspaceId?), which an agent would need to call this correctly in workspace contexts.

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 coverage is only 33% — docId (required) and workspaceId have no descriptions in either schema or description. The description compensates for one parameter by explaining includeLegacy's purpose and non-destructive nature, which goes beyond the schema's one-liner, but the two identity parameters remain entirely unexplained.

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+resource: 'List native workspace custom-property definitions and document values.' This clearly separates it from mutating siblings like set_doc_property, clear_doc_property, and create_custom_property, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 includeLegacy guidance gives a real when-to-use condition ('for recovery'), and the 'never migrates or writes data' note scopes expectations. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_doc or clear_doc_property, and it doesn't state whether workspaceId is needed alongside docId to see workspace-level definitions.

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