list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output_format options and the save_to_file side effect, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any authentication or rate-limit implications. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not made explicit, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 well-structured with a concise main sentence followed by an Args list and Returns. The parameter explanations are necessary given the lack of schema descriptions, so the length is justified. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. Slightly verbose due to parameter details, but appropriate for the coverage gap.

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 description covers parameters, output format, and the save_to_file feature, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it fails to contextualize when to use this tool versus search_documents, which is a key decision an agent must make. This missing usage guidance leaves the tool incomplete for effective selection and 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 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so comprehensively: each of the seven parameters is described with its purpose, and output_format includes allowed values (full, compact, summary) and a default. page_size is given a max (1000), and save_to_file behavior is explained. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool lists documents from IT Glue with a specific verb and resource. It provides parameter details that clarify scope, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_documents tool, which likely serves a similar purpose. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use list_documents versus search_documents or other list tools. It lists filter parameters but does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would steer an agent toward the appropriate tool. This is a significant omission given the existence of a search_documents sibling.

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