List documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the call is instance-wide with no project parameter, pagination must be checked via pagination.has_more, and the call can succeed with empty items plus a note when the module is unavailable or permissions are insufficient. It also clarifies that files are not part of the rows. This goes far beyond 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?

The description is structured with a clear lead sentence, a use-case paragraph, a return-format note, and a pitfalls section. Every sentence adds value: no fluff. The length is justified by the complex pitfalls and cross-references, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick comprehension.

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 purpose, output format (standard list envelope), navigation, pitfalls (module availability, permissions, pagination), and relationships to other tools. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits full return field details but gives enough context for the agent to invoke it correctly. It is fully self-sufficient for the agent.

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 schema already provides descriptions for page and page_size with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance on how to use pagination ('page through rather than assuming page one is everything') and references pagination.has_more, which enriches the semantic understanding of both parameters beyond the 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 opens with 'List the documents visible to you, across every project,' which gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document and list_attachments by explicitly positioning itself as the way to find document IDs, and from search tools by noting it returns all documents rather than filtered results.

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 explicitly states usage: 'Use this to find a document id for get_document or for list_attachments(...)'. It also provides cross-references for related operations (get_document for descriptions, list_attachments for files) and warns when not to rely on a single page, directing the agent to paginate. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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