List documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the return format ('slugs and titles') and the document scope, going beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction, and the lack of pagination/filtering details is acceptable for such a simple list tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the all-important scope ('Artifacts Leapd has produced'), then the return payload, then a cross-reference to get_document. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is fully complete for its simplicity. It even tells the agent what the tool returns and what to use next to read a document. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The mention of return fields partially compensates for lack of an output 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 specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('documents'), and further defines the scope as 'Artifacts Leapd has produced' with examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_document (which reads one) and list_tasks (which lists tasks, not documents).

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 implies its use for obtaining an overview of documents and explicitly directs to 'use get_document to read one,' providing an alternative for deep reads. However, it doesn't discuss when not to use this tool versus other list tools like list_tasks, though the context signals make that distinction implicit.

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