List documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description correctly identifies the action but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, or that matter_id/parent_id may be needed). No contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise at 8 words, front-loading the core function. While it could benefit from slight expansion (e.g., mentioning pagination), every word is earned and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what the list contains (document objects). It covers the basic context but omits that query and pagination are supported, relying on the schema. Adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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 80%, with descriptions for most parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it lists documents within a matter or folder. The verb 'lists' and resource 'documents' are specific, and the scope ('in a matter or folder') distinguishes it from tools like clio_get_document (single) and clio_list_folders, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_list_folders for folders or clio_get_document for a single document. The description does not mention prerequisites or filtering options beyond the schema.

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