List open Beat documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the scope ('currently open'), the action ('List'), and the key output field ('docIndex'), which is sufficient to convey that this is a non-destructive listing operation with no side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element earns its place: the action, the scope, and the practical purpose of the returned docIndex.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is listed, what the output includes, and how to use that output with other tools, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, this justifies a baseline of 4; the description appropriately does not invent unnecessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every screenplay currently open in Beat'), and clearly states what the tool returns: the docIndex for each document. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from doc-specific sibling tools that require a docIndex.

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 clearly signals that this tool should be used first to obtain a docIndex for other Beat tools. It gives clear context about the tool's role as a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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