List Atisbo documentation pages with their URL, title and description. Omit limit for the whole corpus; pass limit to cap the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of pages to return (1-50). Omitted, non-integer, or out-of-range values return the WHOLE corpus — this tool never pages, it only trims. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: omitting limit returns the whole corpus and passing limit only trims, not pages. It also specifies the returned attributes, which is useful behavioral context for a read-only listing tool.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and result fields, the second explains the optional parameter behavior. The most important usage note is front-loaded.
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 one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and how the only parameter behaves. There is no missing information an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 input schema already documents the limit parameter thoroughly, including that omitted, non-integer, or out-of-range values return the whole corpus and that the tool never pages. The description reinforces the omit-versus-pass distinction but adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('List Atisbo documentation pages') and states the output fields (URL, title, description). It is clearly distinct from the get_doc and search_docs siblings by nature of the operation, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 only usage guidance concerns the limit parameter: omit it for the whole corpus or pass it to cap the response. There is no guidance on when to use list_docs versus get_doc or search_docs, leaving tool-selection context implicit.
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.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: get_doc retrieves a single page, list_docs enumerates available pages, and search_docs finds pages by query. There is no ambiguity about which tool to use in a given situation.
All three tools follow a uniform verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_doc, list_docs, search_docs. This makes the toolset predictable and easy to learn.
Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only documentation server. Each tool covers a distinct and necessary operation without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset fully covers the documentation browsing workflow: discover pages (list_docs), find relevant content (search_docs), and read specific content (get_doc). No create/update/delete is expected for a documentation corpus, so there are no meaningful gaps.