list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful details beyond the name: the result is ordered newest-first and includes only ids and titles. It does not mention pagination, potential size limits, or that it is read-only, but for a parameterless list operation the disclosed behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the scope, the ordering rule, and the returned fields. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of the tool name or generic 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?

Given that there are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns (ids and titles, newest first). An agent has all the information needed to decide to call it and to understand the result shape. No critical behavioral context is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 a clear resource ('all stored documents'), and it adds distinguishing details: ordering ('newest first') and return fields ('ids and titles'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_documents (search vs list), get_document (single vs all), and add_document (write vs read).

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 makes the intended use case clear: when an agent needs an unfiltered, chronological overview of all stored documents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with search_documents (filtered retrieval) is strongly implied by 'all stored documents'. Slight deduction for not explicitly stating when not to use it.

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