kms_list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and a recency order, but does not disclose pagination, sorting definition, default limit behavior, permissions, or result shape beyond 'documents'.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. The second sentence is somewhat generic, but it does provide a usage cue without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully described optional filters, the definition is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it should say more about return behavior, ordering, and pagination to fully guide correct invocation.

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 four filter parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only says 'filtering options' and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: list documents, scoped to recent ones, with filtering. This is clear enough to distinguish it from search-oriented siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with kms_search or kms_intelligent_search.

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 'useful for browsing and discovering content' implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent to prefer search tools for targeted queries or explain when listing is preferable.

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