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 behavioral burden. "List every page" implies a complete, read-only enumeration with no pagination, but permissions, rate limits, and whether the result is truncated are never stated. Return-field coverage is also largely duplicative of the output schema.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. The only minor waste is restating return fields (title, group, URL) that the output schema already conveys.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers scope, usage trigger, and both parameters. For a simple two-parameter list tool the only real gap is behavioral context (limits, auth) that no annotation supplies.

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 0%, yet the Args block documents both parameters: it gives concrete version-key values ("current", "1.21.1", ...) and enumerates the four valid section filters, which the schema does not constrain at all. It only omits what omitting section does, which is adequately implied by "optional filter".

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 first sentence gives a specific verb, resource and scope: listing every page of a documentation version, including returned fields (title, group, URL). It is clearly distinguishable from get_doc/get_section, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Useful for browsing or checking whether a page exists before searching" gives a concrete when-to-use condition that implicitly routes keyword lookups to search_docs. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. auth), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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