list_publications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real constraints: a 50-row cap, an allowed-host list with a default host, and that product/version match against the catalog. It omits pagination behavior for results beyond 50 rows and any rate-limit or auth notes, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 size is reasonable and the output fields are front-loaded, but the instruction to call list_publications to see valid product/version values is stated twice (once at the start, once mid-sentence), and the host allowlist detail is buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully previews row contents. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the unpaginated 50-row cap and the two undocumented filter parameters (locale, title_contains) as residual gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for three of five parameters: it gives host values/default, plus concrete product ('STEP 7', 'WinCC Unified') and version ('V21', '6.1') examples. `locale` and `title_contains` receive no explanation at all, leaving a measurable gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List documentation publications') and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, product, version, locale, reader URL). It also clarifies its role as a discovery catalog, which separates it from search_docs and the page-reading siblings.

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 says to use it to discover valid `product` and `version` values and notes reader URLs feed into read_page and get_toc. There is no explicit when-not-use guidance against sibling search_docs, but the primary scenario is unmistakable.

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