LIST_DOCUMENT_SET

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description does state that metadata is returned, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or permission requirements for a potentially large collection.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though there is room for one more sentence of routing guidance.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and where, which is the core need. It falls short on pagination/result-size behavior and on distinguishing itself from the QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET sibling, both of which matter in a five-sibling family.

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 100% for the single library_id parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter's meaning. The description reinforces that the listing is scoped to the specified library but adds no format or constraint details beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (リストします) and resource (ドキュメントセット) with explicit scope (指定されたドキュメントライブラリ内) and even notes that metadata is included. It is clearly distinguishable from LIST_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET, leaving the read-vs-query distinction implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET or QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY. The only usage hint is that results are scoped to a specified library, which is inferable from the required parameter rather than stated explicitly.

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