List documentation pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by indicating the tool lists pages under a path prefix and is intended for browsing a table of contents. It does not describe return format or pagination, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by useful examples and a usage hint. No redundant phrases or filler. It earns its place completely.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and provides concrete usage examples. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., list of page paths or titles), but given the low complexity and existing annotations, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so the description must document the parameters. It implies path_prefix through examples ('under a path prefix' with example paths) but never explicitly names the parameter or explains its format. The limit parameter is not mentioned at all. The description partially compensates but leaves the limit parameter semantically undocumented.

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 states the specific action 'List documentation pages under a path prefix' and provides concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like avax_get_doc (fetch a single doc) and avax_search_docs (search) by defining the browsing/scoping behavior. The resource and action are specific and non-tautological.

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 gives a clear when-to-use hint: 'Use to browse a section's table of contents.' This contextualizes its role relative to other doc tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like avax_list_topics, but the usage hint plus examples are reasonably sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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