medeval_list_project_documents

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the bar. The description adds minimal extra context, such as the scope 'one project evidence repository', but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or how 'raw and retrieved' documents might differ in returned format. It provides some context but leaves gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler that states the action and object clearly. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediate and scannable.

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 is adequate for a simple list operation, especially with an output schema and safety annotations present, but it lacks guidance on how limit works, what 'raw and retrieved' means, and when to select this over closely related siblings. Additional context would improve correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not elaborate on project_id or limit beyond their names and defaults. The phrase 'raw and retrieved documents' relates to output, not parameter meaning, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance for parameters.

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) and resource (raw and retrieved documents) scoped to 'one project evidence repository', which clearly differentiates it from workspace-level or global listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like medeval_search_project_evidence or medeval_list_workspace_documents. The description only states what it does without context, exclusions, or hints about when it's the right choice.

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