LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no documents are open (empty list vs error), whether the list is real-time or cached, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all currently open documents') followed by specific return attributes. Every word earns its place with zero waste or 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what information is returned but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of objects), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a read-only listing tool, this is minimally viable but lacks completeness about how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all currently open documents') with specific attributes (docId, file path, format, size). It distinguishes from siblings like document_get_metadata or document_read_text by focusing on listing open documents rather than reading content or metadata of specific documents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from document_list_sheets or presentation_list_slides which serve similar listing functions for different resource types.

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 doesn't mention when to use document_list versus document_get_metadata for document information, or document_list versus document_open for accessing documents. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., requires documents to be open) or exclusions.

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