list_documents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states the core list behavior and the open-document scope, and 'Return' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose output shape, ordering, failure behavior, or whether hidden or closed documents are excluded.

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?

A single six-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler or redundancy. The terseness is appropriate for a zero-parameter list operation, and any under-specification is captured in other dimensions.

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 list operation, the description is minimally usable, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified what a returned 'document' entry looks like (IDs, paths, metadata) and whether an active session is required. These are clear gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema is already complete and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('open KOMPAS documents'), and the 'open' qualifier narrows the scope, distinguishing it from file-scanning or tree-based siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like get_document_tree or get_document_composition, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like get_active_document_state or get_document_tree, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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