list_target_documents

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's burden is light. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool applies extension/size filtering and guarantees the returned documents are readable and summarizable, plus it discloses the exact fields in each entry. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Three short paragraphs in Korean, each earning its place: purpose/filter criteria first, the cross-tool relative_path guidance second, and the return-format disclosure third. Front-loaded and no filler. It could arguably merge the return-format paragraph with the first, but the structure is clear and efficient.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains filtering behavior, identifies the key deliverable (relative_path), and the output schema covers the return structure. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit mention of the global list of documents the tool filters over, and no downside/edge-case disclosure (e.g., what happens when no documents pass the filters).

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden that the description must compensate for. Per the rubric, this earns the baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics (returned fields: relative_path, size, line count, modification time) rather than parameter syntax, which is irrelevant here.

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+resource: it returns the list of documents that passed extension/size restrictions and can actually be read and summarized. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_folder_structure (raw folder tree, not filtered documents) and list_saved_reports (previously saved reports, not analysis targets). Scope and filtering criteria are explicit.

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 gives actionable usage guidance by telling the agent that the relative_path obtained here is passed as-is to all other tools, establishing this as the canonical entry point for document selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer siblings like scan_folder_structure or list_saved_reports instead — the exclusion logic is left to inference rather than stated.

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