list_public_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'lists all documents with public links', but fails to mention key traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or how results are structured. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 sentence and very concise, but it is too brief to be effective. It lacks necessary detail, forfeiting completeness for brevity. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but it is under-specified.

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 complexity (no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and many related sibling tools), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'public link', what the response contains, or any constraints. A more complete description is needed for the agent to use this tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage via a single parameter 'input' which is an empty object with no description. The tool description adds no information about parameters, their meaning, or how to use them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the user with no understanding of what to pass.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'documents with public links', and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_documents' by specifying the subset of documents that have public links. This provides a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_documents' or other list tools. No context is provided about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative without usage hints.

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