list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists documents but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'indexed' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a simple parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). It efficiently conveys the essentials in two sentences.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behaviors like pagination and doesn't differentiate from siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the output schema covering returns.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by explaining that 'category' is an optional filter. However, it doesn't specify what categories are available (e.g., via 'list_categories'), their format, or how filtering works, leaving the parameter poorly defined beyond the schema's basic type.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('indexed documents'), and specifies optional filtering by category. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_knowledge' or 'search_similar' that might also retrieve documents, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_knowledge' or 'get_document'. It mentions optional filtering by category but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what the tool returns without filters.

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