list-documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns metadata/URLs/file info and not binary content, which is valuable. However, it does not state side effects (though 'list' implies read-only), pagination behavior, or any rate/auth constraints, leaving moderate gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying exclusion, earning its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain page/limit interaction, response shape, or how 'all documents' relates to pagination. It provides a minimal baseline but is incomplete for a tool with three parameters.

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 only 33% (case_id only), and the description does not compensate for page/limit parameters. It implicitly ties case_id to the case context, but omits explanation of pagination controls, leaving undocumented params for a low-coverage schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List all documents') and the target resource ('for a specific case'), with the verb+resource structure distinguishing it from siblings like list-notes. It also clarifies the output scope (metadata, URLs, file info) and explicitly excludes binary content, leaving no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or any explicit decision criteria, relying solely on the inferred context that documents are needed.

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