get_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic listing operation and does not mention read-only nature, pagination, sorting, return format, or any side effects. The agent cannot predict behavior beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, a nested filters object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain list behavior, filtering interplay, pagination, or return structure, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema itself documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'for a specific doctype' merely restates the doctype parameter). 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a list of documents') with a clear qualifier ('for a specific doctype'). This directly contrasts with sibling tools like get_doctypes and get_doctype_fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 'for a specific doctype' implies usage context and helps distinguish from sibling tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over alternatives, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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