list_loaded_documents

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 discloses that documents are loaded via get_act_details(eli=..., load_content=True), that they expire after 2h TTL, and that the tool returns a single page with pagination metadata (page_info). It doesn't detail the exact page_info fields, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Well-structured and efficient: a brief lead sentence, essential context about loading and TTL, clear usage guidelines, and a compact example list. Every section earns its place and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, full schema coverage, existing output schema), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, how documents get loaded, and what the response shape is (page_info). Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete usage examples with limit/offset combinations (e.g., limit=5, offset=5 for next page) and clarifies the pagination behavior, which goes beyond the schema's defaults and constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Wyświetl dokumenty załadowane do pamięci (Document Store)' — clearly stating the tool lists loaded documents. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search operations by naming search_legal_acts as the alternative, preventing confusion.

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 has dedicated 'Kiedy użyć' (when to use) and 'Kiedy NIE używać' (when NOT to use) sections, and it names the alternative tool ('Do wyszukiwania aktów → użyj search_legal_acts'). It also adds useful context about TTL (2h) that informs when a document needs reloading.

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