list_documents

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that nothing is opened and no password is asked for; it does not cover pagination or result limits, but the safety/authentication note is meaningful.

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 compact and front-loaded: resource and returned fields come first, followed by the no-password note, downstream id usage, and the get_status alternative. Every sentence adds operational value without 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field context and routing information. Nothing critical an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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%, and the single enum parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not mention the 'only' filter or add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource (the workspace's documents) and enumerates the returned metadata (id, folder/file name, kind, read status), making the operation immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from get_status for counts and explains how its returned id is used by get_document_outline and get_form_checks.

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?

It explicitly says 'For counts only use get_status,' giving a clear alternative for a common adjacent need. It also explains that the returned id is what get_document_outline and get_form_checks take, routing the agent to downstream tools rather than leaving that inference implicit.

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