list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses what each result line contains and that a concrete part also yields its base part's documents. It omits return ordering, error behavior, and whether the call is read-only, though that is strongly implied.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement and then the output shape. Slightly awkward opening clause ('The documents in the store, or...'), but there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and an output schema. The behavioral and output notes are sufficient for correct invocation, and calling out the 12-character reference used by other tools helps the agent link results. Only minor gaps remain: ordering and error cases.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: the base-part inheritance rule that governs what the part parameter returns. That is valuable beyond the schema's 'MPN or alias, case ignored' note.

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 states the resource (documents) and its two scopes: the whole store, or one part. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_parts and list_items because it names documents and the expected output. The verb 'list' is only implied by the title, not stated outright.

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 only implied: you call it to see which documents exist, optionally narrowing to a part. No explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as get_index, search_text, or list_parts.

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