list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only listing operation ('List') but does not explicitly confirm safety or side effects. It also does not mention pagination, sorting, or limit semantics, although the schema's limit parameter is self-explanatory. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious reading of 'list', but for a simple retrieval tool this is borderline adequate—hence a 3.

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 that leads with the primary action and resource, followed by a purpose clause. It contains no filler, fluff, or redundant information. Every phrase serves a function: the action, the object, and the reason. It is appropriately brief for a tool of this simplicity.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present), and the description covers its purpose and when to use it. The only minor omission is clarification of what 'indexed' refers to (e.g., all documents, memory entries), which could confuse an agent. However, given the output schema likely defines the structure and the tool name is clear, the description is largely complete for practical use.

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 a single parameter 'limit' with default/min/max but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving its semantics entirely to inference from the name and constraints. Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, the parameter meaning is not clearly communicable, particularly for agents unaware of common 'limit' conventions. This is a significant gap.

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') and a resource ('what is indexed'), indicating it retrieves the set of indexed items. It hints at its purpose relative to siblings ('so a search can be narrowed' contrasts with search_memory, and 'gap in the memory' suggests memory_status), but it does not explicitly name or differentiate those siblings. It is more specific than a tautology and gives a meaningful overview.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: before a search to narrow scope, or to recognize gaps in memory. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'use search_memory for retrieving specific content'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.

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