list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a list with basic info and chunk/embedding statistics, and explains parameter behavior (e.g., has_embeddings filtering, defaults). It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the context implies it. Additional disclosure about potential performance or rate limits would be beneficial.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line title, a one-sentence summary, an 'Args' section for parameters, and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essentials for a listing tool with parameters and return type. It mentions output includes basic info and chunk/embedding statistics, which is appropriate given an output schema exists. However, it could briefly mention pagination behavior or performance considerations given the potential for large result sets.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by providing complete parameter documentation: defaults, valid values for order_by, semantics for has_embeddings (True/False/None), and the effect of limit/offset on pagination. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states it lists all imported documents and returns a summary list with sorting and filtering. The verb '列出' (list) and resource '所有已导入的文档' (all imported documents) are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document (single document), delete_document, update_document, and search tools, making its purpose distinct.

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 explains the parameters and their use cases (e.g., filtering by embeddings presence) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative search tools (search_fts_only, search_hybrid, search_vector_only) which could also retrieve documents. The context is implied but not explicitly guided, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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