odp_get_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, lacks side effects, or requires authentication. It also does not describe pagination, limitations, or error handling. This is minimal but not incorrect, so it scores low due to lack of transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—yet conveys the purpose and the critical parameter format. It is front-loaded with the main action and then explains the argument. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 (single required parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of the return format, ordering, pagination, or potential edge cases (e.g., invalid app_num). While the output schema may cover return structure, the description lacks any usage context or caveats, making it only partially complete for a real-world agent.

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 provides a specific formatting rule for app_num ('without slashes') and an example ('14412875'), which significantly clarifies the schema's bare string type. Since schema coverage is 0%, this additional detail is valuable and compensates well for the one parameter.

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 action ('Get list of documents') and identifies the resource ('application file wrapper'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like odp_get_application or odp_get_dataset. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other document-related tools (e.g., ptab_get_documents) or state why this tool should be preferred, but the specificity of 'application file wrapper' gives reasonable differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or exclusions. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description provides no decision-making information, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and resource.

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