eda_sys_file_system_get_documents_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the returned path has no trailing slash, that browser calls always throw, and that missing external interaction permission always throws, which is strong transparency for a simple getter.

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 compact and well-organized with a signature line, purpose, remark, and two numbered notes. It has minor redundancy—the 'returns' line repeats the purpose—but overall it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero-required-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: return value, trailing-slash behavior, client-only restriction, and permission requirement. The wrapper parameters are adequately covered by the schema, so the tool is largely complete for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's signature shows no parameters, while the schema defines args and windowId as wrapper-level fields; the description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 method signature and purpose: get the documents directory path. This is a specific verb+resource combo that distinguishes it from sibling path tools like get_libraries_paths or get_projects_paths, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The notes about client-only execution and permission requirements are constraints, not selection criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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