doc_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. The description is straightforward for a read-only listing operation, but it does not mention whether the list is sorted, only top-level files, or if it includes subdirectories. The lack of annotations and minimal behavioral details makes it adequate but not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It could arguably be longer to address usage or behavior, but as a concise summary it is excellent.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema which likely defines the return structure. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, it could benefit from specifying whether it lists all files or only those extracted by the doc_parse tools, and whether the output includes full paths or just filenames. But given its simplicity, the description covers the essential context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Since there are no parameters, the description is not required to compensate for missing parameter documentation. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameter-free tools.

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 'List' with a concrete resource 'the extracted .md files' and a specific location 'output directory'. It is clear from the description that the tool returns a list of markdown files, distinguishing it from other doc_* tools that parse or probe URLs, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context implies when to use it: after extraction, to see what files are available. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling tools like doc_parse and doc_probe, one might infer it is for post-extraction listing, but the description does not state this.

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