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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cursor pagination, which is a useful behavioral trait, but omits other important behaviors such as read-only nature, default limits, ordering, error handling, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool that might be called in critical workflows.

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, with two short sentences that front-load the primary action. There is no filler or redundancy. It earns a high score for brevity, though it trades completeness for conciseness and could benefit from a little more detail.

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 five optional parameters, lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is too sparse to provide complete operational context. It does not explain parameter interactions, return value shape, pagination mechanics, or default behaviors. This is a minimum viable description but leaves significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the five parameters, and the description only says 'with filters' without explaining any parameter meanings. There is no mention of what 'cursor', 'search', 'status', or 'collection_id' represent. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 main action ('List documents') and the resource ('documents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_document or list_collections. The added phrase 'with filters' gives a hint of scope, though it doesn't enumerate specific filter capabilities, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or search_tools. The phrase 'with filters' implies some search-like functionality, but there are no exclusions, alternatives, or context cues. The agent is left to infer suitability based on the tool name alone.

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