list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description adds the requirement of 'documents:read capability gate', indicating it's a read operation. However, it omits details like error handling, pagination behavior, or that the operation is non-destructive. The permission note is helpful, but more transparency on behavioral traits would improve the score.

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 highly concise: the main action is stated in the first sentence, followed by usage contexts, parameter details, and a permission requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or 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?

For a simple list tool with 2 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, fields returned, parameter meanings, usage scenarios, and permission. It doesn't address error cases or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: order_id is 'the Qualia order id' and limit is 'page size (default 25, max 100)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure. However, it doesn't provide examples or format constraints beyond the default/max.

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 documents attached to a title order, specifying the fields returned (name, mime, size, created). It uses a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool has similar functionality, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides concrete usage scenarios (e.g., 'what documents are on this order?' or 'did the buyer upload the LOI yet?'), guiding when to use. It could improve by explicitly mentioning when not to use or contrasting with siblings, but the given context is clear enough.

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