medeval_list_workspace_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the documents are 'generated/versioned' and scoped to 'one workspace', which is beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavior like pagination, sorting, or what exactly a 'document head' entails. With annotations covering the main traits, this is adequate.

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 sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the verb and immediately specifies the resource and scope. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 tool has a single required parameter, an output schema exists (so return format is covered elsewhere), and annotations handle safety. The description covers the key aspects: what is listed, the type of documents, and the workspace scope. It doesn't mention potential pagination or ordering, but for a straightforward list tool this is acceptable. It's nearly complete, slightly lacking detail on what 'document heads' entails.

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 for the workspace_id parameter. The phrase 'in one workspace' directly clarifies the role of workspace_id, indicating which workspace the documents belong to. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition, making the single parameter's intent clear.

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 clear verb (list), a specific resource (generated/versioned document heads), and scope (one workspace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_documents by mentioning 'heads' and 'workspace', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. Still, the purpose is clear and specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like medeval_list_project_documents or medeval_list_document_revisions. The description says nothing about contexts where this is preferable or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or comparison, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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