get_list_with_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns 'a list of documents along with total count,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how pagination works (given the limit_page_length parameter), or what happens with large result sets. For a data retrieval tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. The two-sentence format is appropriately concise, though the parameter descriptions could be more informative. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, data retrieval operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics but has significant gaps. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description should better address when to use this versus other document retrieval tools, provide more parameter detail (especially with 0% schema coverage), and describe behavioral constraints. It's minimally adequate but incomplete for optimal agent usage.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section that documents all 5 parameters with brief explanations. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. While it names parameters and gives basic purpose (e.g., 'Fields to return'), it lacks crucial details like field format, filter syntax, order_by expression format, or what 'ERPNext DocType name' specifically means. The parameter documentation is present but superficial.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of documents along with total count.' This specifies both the verb ('Get') and resource ('documents'), and distinguishes it from simpler list tools by mentioning the total count. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_documents' or 'get_count' beyond the count feature.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for document retrieval (list_documents, get_document, get_count), there's no indication of when this paginated list-with-count approach is preferred over simpler listing or counting operations. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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