list_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating list operation and specifies the output fields: name, description, and source URL for each documentation set. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but the tool is simple and parameterless.

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 three purposeful sentences: the first defines the scope, the second establishes usage ordering, and the third specifies the returned fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant statements.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary invocation context: return values, the ordering requirement, and why the tool is a prerequisite for other documentation tools. Nothing critical is omitted.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema.

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 action, 'Lists all available documentation libraries and frameworks,' and identifies the tool's role as the discovery step required before other documentation tools. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling retrieval and search tools even without naming them individually.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool as the first step and states it is required before using other documentation tools because callers need the docName. This provides a clear when-to-use and why, with the alternative tool category implied as everything that follows.

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