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. It discloses the return format ('a list of document names'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or describe behavior when no documents are open. The lack of such detail is a gap, but the verb 'Get' and the nature of listing imply a safe read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the return type. Every word earns its place, with no irrelevant detail or redundancy.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns. With an output schema present, the return value specification is adequately covered, and the mention of 'FreeCAD' provides the necessary context.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is consistent with this, providing no ambiguity.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the list of open documents in FreeCAD'), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_document or get_objects, which have different actions and targets.

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 usage when you need to know which documents are currently open, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, there is no guidance like 'use this instead of get_objects to enumerate documents rather than objects within a document.'

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