List Documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method via the endpoint (GET) and that it returns data, but it does not mention behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the endpoint for reference. Every sentence adds value.

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 lack of output schema, the description appropriately mentions the returned fields (IDs, types, statuses, dates). It also implies the use of the limit parameter for pagination. However, it could be improved by explicitly stating that results are paginated and how to iterate if needed.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (pg and limit) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Get list'), the resource ('documents'), the scope ('in Chestnyi Znak for a given product group'), and the returned fields ('document IDs, types, statuses, dates'). It distinguishes from siblings like chz_doc_info which likely retrieves a single document.

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 implies that this tool is for listing documents by product group, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., chz_doc_info for single document details) or any exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly framed.

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