list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the "canonical Markdown" qualifier, suggesting drafts or non-canonical variants are excluded, which is modest but real behavioral context. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume, which matters for a list 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?

A single short sentence with the qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail noted in other dimensions.

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 list tool with an undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotation-covered return behavior, the description is too thin. An agent still does not know what a returned document listing looks like or how the space filter shapes results.

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 0% for the single "space" parameter, and the description only repeats its name and optionality, both of which the schema already conveys. It does not explain what a "space" is or what happens when the filter is omitted, so the compensation burden is not met.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List ... documents") plus a qualifier ("canonical Markdown") that separates it from write_document and append_document. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_document or search_knowledge, which are the closest siblings an agent would weigh.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_document (single fetch) or search_knowledge (query-based). The parenthetical "(optional space)" describes the parameter, not the usage context, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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