dms_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that documents are listed with id, path, doc type, and url, but does not disclose any permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. While 'list' implies a read operation, the description lacks explicit safety or side-effect context, similar to the update_drive example which scored 2 for no annotations and missing reversibility/permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and output fields without any redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and acceptable inputs.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential aspects: the repositories, the filtered behavior (via source param), and the returned fields. It lacks explicit mention of sorting or default limit beyond the schema's 'default 100', but for a list operation, this is reasonably complete given the low complexity.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but the main description adds value by enumerating the valid source repository values (drive, risk-team, legal-data, land, sheet, bdlaws) and listing the output fields. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'string' type and provides meaningful context that the agent can use.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'documents in a DMS source repository', enumerates the valid repositories (drive, risk-team, legal-data, land, sheet, bdlaws), and states the output fields (id, path, doc type, url). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dms_search or dms_details.

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 usage for listing documents with optional source filtering, and the 'source' parameter clarifies 'Omit for all'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like dms_search for searching or dms_details for specific document details, so no direct or implied exclusions are stated.

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