Docs: List Sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes what the tool returns (tabs, sections, page slugs) and implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential limitations like size or hierarchy, but for a simple listing tool, the described behavior is sufficient.

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 concise sentences: the first states the function, the second states when to use it. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 and no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, usage scenario, and output content (tabs, sections, page slugs). It could specify the exact return format (e.g., array vs. object) but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('Drill into a specific section by name'). The tool description reinforces the notion of sections in its main text, so the parameter's purpose is evident. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds minimal extra semantics beyond that.

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 the specific action ('List') and resource ('documentation structure') with concrete details ('tabs, sections, and page slugs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docs-get-doc and docs-lookup-topic by focusing on browsing the structure rather than retrieving specific content.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when the user wants to browse available topics or you need to discover page paths.' It gives clear context but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives by name, though sibling tool names are visible in the context.

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