List documents

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (id, title, url, timestamps, no bodies) and the default sort, but says nothing about pagination behavior, total counts, permissions, or what happens when a collectionId/parentDocumentId matches nothing.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first gives scope and filters, the second gives the return shape and default ordering. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and excluding bodies. For a six-parameter read tool with no required args, this is nearly sufficient, though how limit/offset paginate the result is left unstated.

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 only 33%, and the description only adds meaning for collectionId/parentDocumentId (already documented in the schema) plus the default sort. The limit, offset, direction enumerations, and the distinction between 'index' and other sort modes are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list documents) plus the two optional filters (collection, parent document) and a default ordering rule, which an agent can distinguish from a get or search tool. It does not explicitly name siblings such as search_documents or get_document, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'optionally filtered by collection and/or parent document', which hints at when to reach for it over a full-text search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative tool. An agent must infer the boundary against search_documents and get_document.

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