get_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action (list) and its generic/fallback nature. It omits any information about return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or whether filtering is applied consistently. As a read-only list tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical, but the description still carries too little behavioral context to be transparent.

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, front-loaded with 'Generic,' and every word serves a purpose. It immediately conveys the tool's role as fallback for listing documents. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but not hopeless. It explains the core purpose and fallback behavior, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it does not clarify what a 'document' entails, what return data looks like, or how it differs from dedicated tools beyond the fallback note, leaving gaps for an agent trying to predict output shape and limitations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the entity_type concept that the schema already describes with examples. Since all parameters have well-documented descriptions in the schema, the tool description adds no extra semantic value.

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 of any MoySklad entity type, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'documents of any MoySklad entity type.' The phrase 'fallback for entities without a dedicated tool' distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific entity types, making the 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 explicitly says this is a 'fallback for entities without a dedicated tool,' which tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. It sets clear usage boundaries: use when no specialized tool exists for the requested entity type. This is the kind of exclusion guidance that is often missing.

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