List Document Children

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is read-only (implicitly) and lists return fields, but does not address side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or data freshness. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('List the direct children...') and precisely conveys scope and output. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It clarifies 'direct children', which differentiates it from recursive listings. However, it omits pagination info, error handling, or limits, which would be helpful for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

Two parameters exist: workspaceId (no description) and docId (described in schema). Schema coverage is 50%. The description adds no semantic information beyond the schema for workspaceId, and for docId the schema already provides meaning. The return value descriptions help indirectly but do not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 specific verbs ('list') and resources ('direct children of a document'), lists exact child types (embed_linked_doc, embed_synced_doc, LinkedPage) and return fields (docId, title, URL, inTrash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs or list_workspace_tree.

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 context (listing children of a specific document) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No comparative guidance is provided.

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