list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns metadata (path, size, type) and supports optional filtering. However, it does not clarify scope (all documents? recursive? hidden files?) or whether it is read-only. It adds moderate value but lacks full transparency.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose, then parameter details. No extraneous text. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by structured argument descriptions.

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 has only 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what each parameter does. However, it could mention if listing is limited to certain scopes (e.g., current directory only) or if there are any limits (e.g., max items).

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 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains 'category' as an optional subfolder name and 'pattern' as a glob matched against relative path, with examples (e.g., *.pdf). This adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and defaults.

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 lists study documents with relative path, size, and type. The verb 'list' and resource 'study documents' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like search_documents (which searches content) and read_document (which retrieves content).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_documents or get_corpus_overview. The description only explains parameters but does not indicate prerequisites or contexts (e.g., before reading, or for browsing).

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