List documents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safe read-only behavior, and the description adds the scope of 'ingested into a domain's knowledge base.' It does not discuss pagination, ordering, or return details, but for a simple list tool with annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and a clear scope in the description, it is mostly complete. It could benefit from noting whether results are sorted or paginated, but those are non-critical gaps for a basic listing tool.

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 must compensate. It only mentions 'domain's' in passing, which implies the domain parameter selects the knowledge base, but it does not explain domain's format, requiredness, or behavior. The single parameter is simple, but the description adds minimal value.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('documents ingested into a domain's knowledge base'), clearly stating what the tool does. It differentiates from siblings like list_rules by targeting documents rather than rules.

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?

Provides clear context: this lists documents from a domain's knowledge base, which implies when it should be used versus other tools like ingest_text or put_rules. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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