postmd_list_group_documents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination, substring searching on title/file name, and case-insensitivity. It also discloses the required permissions, which helps the agent anticipate auth failures.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, auth requirement, and key behavioral details with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, required permissions, pagination, and query semantics. It does not describe the response shape or default page size, but the parameter schema and readOnly annotation cover much of the remaining context.

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 description adds meaning for q by clarifying it is a substring, case-insensitive search, and 'Paged' gives context for page/size. However, the schema already documents q, sort, folderId, and rootOnly, and the description does not explain defaults or the relationship between folderId and rootOnly beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List documents in a group.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like postmd_list_groups (which lists groups) and postmd_list_my_notes (which lists notes). The group scope is explicit and immediately understandable.

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 implies the tool is used when you need documents belonging to a group, and it usefully states prerequisite API key scopes (groups:read and documents:read). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools or mention when not to use it, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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