list_documents

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and shows what data is returned, but it does not mention pagination, result size limits, ordering, or whether all indexed files are always returned.

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 one well-structured sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every listed field adds useful information about the output.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, this is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the key returned fields. The only notable gap is the absence of pagination or scale behavior, but since the tool takes no inputs and has an output schema, the description is 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description appropriately focuses on the output.

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 ('indexed files'), and names the returned metadata fields (hashes, chunk counts, timestamps, source paths). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documents and get_document, which imply filtering or retrieving individual documents.

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 intended usage is implied by the word 'List' and the named fields, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of search_documents or get_document. It also does not mention any alternatives or conditions that would exclude its use.

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