list_documentsList available specification documents.
Args:
doc_type: Filter by document type - "3gpp", "ietf", or "mpeg" (optional)
search_pattern: Search pattern for spec number or title (optional)
limit: Maximum number of results (default: 20, max: 100)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| doc_type | No | ||
| search_pattern | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a minor behavioral detail ('max: 100' for limit), but no additional context about pagination, sorting, or side effects.
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 succinct sentence plus a well-formatted Args list. Every line provides useful information without 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?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameters. It is sufficient, though it does not mention return format or sorting, which are fairly expected for such a 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?
The description fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter: doc_type with allowed values, search_pattern as a search over spec number/title, and limit with default and maximum. This gives agents clear parameter meaning.
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 'List available specification documents', identifying the specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_specifications, so it is clear but not distinguished.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_specifications. It only lists parameters, leaving the user to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct but there are clusters of similar functionality, such as multiple search mechanisms (search_specifications, semantic_search, get_requirements with a search parameter) and reference-graph tools (get_spec_references, get_spec_dependents, get_relationship_graph). Descriptions do differentiate them, but an agent could still be uncertain which to use for a given query.
Most tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_documents, search_specifications, get_requirements). However, semantic_search is adjective_noun rather than verb_noun, and get_database_stats is a generic outlier among the spec-focused tools. Overall the pattern is consistent with minor deviations.
With 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but not excessive for the breadth of functionality: search, metadata, requirements, test generation, relationships, and schemas. Each tool has a defined role, and the count feels warranted for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflow well: discovering specs (search_specifications, list_documents), retrieving content (get_document_content, get_requirements), analyzing relationships (get_spec_references, get_spec_dependents), and generating tests (build_cross_spec_suite, generate_tests). Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a direct tool to fetch a requirement's full surrounding clause (workaround via get_document_content), but no critical dead ends.