fusion_list_documents

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

The annotations already list readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful context about what it returns (state per document), which goes beyond annotations, but does not disclose any extra behaviors like possible slowdowns or filtering semantics.

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 sentence front-loads both the action ('List') and the object ('open Fusion documents'), with the state detail appended. No filler, every word earns its place.

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 has no parameters and no output schema; the annotations cover the read-only nature. The description includes the key return concept (state), which is enough for basic usage. It could be slightly richer by saying exactly how the return is structured (e.g., an object per document), but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify. With schema description coverage already at 100%, there is nothing for the description to add.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('all open Fusion documents'), and it names the returned data ('active / modified / saved state'). This distinguishes it from siblings like fusion_document_info or fusion_list_projects with sufficient precision.

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 usage is implied: it is for enumerating open documents. However, there is no explicit mention of when to choose this over alternatives like fusion_document_info, and no exclusion or context such as 'when you need a list of all documents'. The purpose is clear but the guidance is minimal.

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