List Document Children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (docId, title, URL, inTrash), which are not in annotations or output schema. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence defines purpose and scope, the second details return fields. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields. It is missing details on error handling, ordering, or pagination, but these are reasonable gaps for a straightforward read tool. The behavioral annotations fill some 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with only docId having a description. The description adds no new parameter info: it mentions the parent doc but does not explain workspaceId or add constraints. For docId, the schema already covers it. The description fails to compensate for the missing workspaceId description.

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 verb (list), the resource (direct children of a document), and specifies the types of children: embed_linked_doc, embed_synced_doc blocks, and inline LinkedPage references. It differentiates from siblings like list_docs and list_docs_by_tag by focusing on a specific parent doc and direct children only.

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 implies usage when you need the children of a document, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workspace_tree for a full hierarchy or list_docs for all documents. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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