list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'see' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention permissions, pagination, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 compact, front-loads the purpose in the first line, and then uses a concise Args section to cover both parameters. Every sentence adds value beyond the schema, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the task and parameter semantics well. It could be more complete by explicitly stating read-only behavior or noting when to prefer 'find'/'show', but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, making the parameter documentation critical. The description supplies the exact allowed values for 'kind' and clearly states that 'collection' only applies to kind='documents', which is essential semantic information the schema does not provide.

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 lists what is already indexed and positions it as a pre-ingestion check. It identifies the resource type (indexed items) and action (see/list), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find', 'show', or 'status' that could also be used to inspect data.

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 phrase 'before ingesting it again' gives a clear usage context and helps an agent know when to call this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to prefer a sibling, but the intended scenario is clear enough.

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