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 the read-only nature (listing), the security constraint (never leaving root), and the return format. It doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, but for a listing operation the disclosed traits are adequate.

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 one-sentence summary, parameter explanations, and return details. It's slightly verbose but every sentence provides value, and the critical scoping constraint is 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?

The description covers the operation, parameters, and return contract clearly. It lacks only minor details like sorting order or error behavior, which are not critical for a listing tool. The presence of an output schema (indicated by context) further reduces the need to document return fields.

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 fully compensates. It explains directory (relative or absolute, with '.' for root) and glob_pattern (format, defaults, recursive matching, and security constraints), giving complete meaning 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 states a specific action (list files) and resource (directory), with clear scoping to the allowed root. It distinguishes from siblings like read_document (reading content) and document_info (metadata) by focusing on listing directory entries.

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?

It clearly implies usage for listing directory contents and even notes that returned paths are accepted by other tools, guiding workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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