list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context, and it does describe the output contents (identity, change state, read-only state, API7 handles). It does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or what errors may occur, but 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating query, so the disclosure is adequate if not exhaustive.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence that names the action, scope, and return fields without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what will be returned (identity, changed/read-only state, typed API7 handles) and what 'all' means ('open native documents'). No additional context is necessary to invoke it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the baseline for no-parameter tools applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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') plus a precise resource ('all open native documents') and enumerates the returned data: identity, changed/read-only state, and typed API7 handles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling document operations like create_document, open_document, save_document, and close_document.

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 phrase 'List all open native documents' implies the tool is for enumerating currently open documents, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. For a simple read-only list tool this is acceptable but still leaves the decision to inference.

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