list_docs

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

The description discloses three behavioral modes and states that path 'read the full body' of a doc. It does not mention effects of limit or subdir, but the read-only nature is implied. No annotations are provided, so this description carries the burden and mostly succeeds.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and modes. The first sentence is dense but efficient; the second adds practical guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly clearer.

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?

Covers the core functionality and gives usage guidance, but lacks explanation for limit and subdir parameters, and does not position itself relative to search_docs. For a 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description explains 'query' and 'path' parameters but omits 'limit' and 'subdir', leaving their semantics unresolved. It partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool browses and searches the local docs/ folder and enumerates three distinct modes (list all, keyword search, read by path). It differentiates from web tools with 'before going to the web', but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling search_docs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this before going to the web, implying local docs should be checked first. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to sibling search_docs, leaving some ambiguity.

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