list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits: it explains the pagination mechanism and limit cap. However, it omits details like access restrictions, ordering, or whether the operation is read-only. The pagination info is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state purpose and pagination details. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the complexity of the tool (simple list with pagination), the description covers pagination and filtering basics. However, it misses details on return format, permissions, and differentiation from sibling tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains limit and offset in the context of pagination, and mentions project as a filter. However, it does not describe the valid range for limit or the format for project, and the note about default conflicts with the schema (schema default null vs description default 50). It compensates partially but not fully.

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 action (list) and resource (documents), and notes optional filtering by project. It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_projects or list_categories.

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 pagination details but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_document for a single document, search_work_packages for broader search). It fails to specify context or exclusions.

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