list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications of listing 'all' documents, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. The description is overly minimal for full 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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated), the description need not detail return values. It adequately communicates the tool's scope. Minor gaps remain, such as lack of mention of pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for a list operation and are likely covered by the output schema.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description correctly avoids inventing any. It adds no meaning beyond the schema because there is nothing to explain.

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 ('List') and the resource ('all documents currently indexed by the RAG service'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings: search_knowledge_base for searching, ask_knowledge_base for querying, and service_health for health checks.

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 by stating what it lists, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, leaving the decision to inference rather than direct guidance.

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