List documents

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is already covered. The description adds freshness filtering and the indexed-vs-managed distinction, which enriches behavioral understanding beyond what annotations state. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, front-loaded with the core purpose. Minimal waste. The freshness mention is a small ambiguity since it's not an actual parameter, but overall concise and well-structured.

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?

Output schema exists and is rich (5 params, all documented). The description covers what's expected of a filtered list tool. The one gap: 'freshness' is referenced in the description but no freshness parameter exists, which could confuse the agent about what filtering is actually available.

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 100%, so all 5 parameters are described in the schema itself. The description adds 'freshness' as a filter axis (not a parameter, suggesting time-based filtering exists implicitly), and 'project_workspace reports them' for kind/status is useful cross-tool pointer that goes slightly beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description is clear: 'List indexed and managed documents, filtered by kind, status or freshness.' It identifies verb (list), resource (documents), and the three filter axes. It distinguishes from siblings by noting these are 'indexed and managed' documents (vs card/changelog/memory lists), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling for filtering.

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 implies a query/filter tool and mentions 'indexed and managed' distinction which hints at scope, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs project_doc_create/patch/move or when the managed vs indexed distinction matters practically. The managed parameter hints at one usage nuance but no explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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