docshelf_list_documents

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the grouping-by-category behavior and the 'list everything' default. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what 'grouped' looks like in the response.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The filter behavior is stated in a single clear sentence after the core purpose.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main filtering behavior. But the omission of shelf_path and lack of any note about result grouping details make the definition incomplete for an agent that needs to call it correctly in all cases.

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 description usefully explains the category parameter's behavior, which helps given low schema coverage. However, shelf_path appears in the schema with no description and is never addressed in the tool description, leaving a potentially important scoping parameter 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('documents') and adds distinctive grouping behavior ('grouped by category'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like docshelf_search, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 gives explicit usage context: pass a category to filter, omit it to list everything. This is clear and actionable, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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