scf_list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'read — viewer role'. It adds useful behavioral content by enumerating what the list reveals: lifecycle status, section counts, unresolved conflicts, pending retirements, and staleness against current org inputs. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 that states the action, resource, access level, and key returned fields without redundancy. Every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the call returns and the access context. The agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without needing additional undocumented guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'lifecycle status' loosely aligns with the status filter but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. This is the appropriate baseline when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('generated ISMS documents'), and the scope ('read — viewer role'), immediately distinguishing it from singular tools like scf_get_document and from generator-related siblings like scf_list_document_generators. The colon-delimited content list further clarifies what kind of listing this is.

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 clearly signals this is a read-only listing operation with viewer-role access, giving an agent confidence about when it is appropriate to call. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as scf_get_document for retrieving a single document or scf_list_document_domains for related listings.

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