Get filing suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds what the tool returns: suggested correspondents, tags, document types, storage paths, and dates. It also explains the suggestion source ('trained matching'), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the note about being useful before paperless_update_document adds practical guidance without bloating the description.

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 tool with a single fully documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the purpose, inputs, and expected outputs. Since there is no output schema, listing the returned suggestion fields is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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?

placeholder

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: asking paperless what it would file a document as, based on its trained matching. It enumerates the returned suggestion categories, making it distinct from sibling tools like paperless_get_document or paperless_search_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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want filing suggestions and before calling paperless_update_document. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is well defined.

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