list_documents

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explains what knowledge and duplicate_file_names represent, why duplicates occur, and instructs relaying warnings verbatim. This is valuable operational context that the structured annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence explains a non-obvious part of the response or an actionable follow-up. The description is compact while carrying substantial information.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious output fields and the required user-facing warning behavior. It does not describe error cases or the full document list shape, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the readOnly annotation.

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 schema provides no description for project_id (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'in a project' and mention of 'project's size' clarify that project_id identifies the project whose documents are listed, but it does not explicitly document the parameter's format or requiredness. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb, 'List', with a clear resource, 'the documents in a project'. The rest of the description clarifies what the returned metadata fields represent, making the tool's purpose distinct from document-level siblings like read_document and write_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 this is the tool for inspecting project contents and even suggests write_document with overwrite=true as the follow-up when duplicate_file_names appears. However, it does not explicitly contrast list_documents with pull_documents or read_document, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is useful but mostly implicit.

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