list_documents

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

The description discloses the key behavior of not returning document bodies and scopes results to 'recently indexed' versions. With no annotations, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated; however, for a listing tool this is adequate.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource and adding a useful qualifier.

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?

The tool is simple and the output schema covers return values, but the lack of parameter explanation and explicit sibling differentiation leaves clear gaps, making it merely adequate.

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 sole parameter `limit` is completely undocumented in both the schema and description. The description does not mention how `limit` affects results, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name.

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 'List' and resource 'recently indexed document versions', and explicitly notes it avoids returning bodies, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_document or search_evidence.

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 a recent list of documents is needed but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_evidence or get_document, nor any exclusions.

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