list_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses defaults (include_large=False, downloaded_only=True), the 50MB threshold, and query semantics (metadata only, case-insensitive substring). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is inherent in 'list' and not misleading.

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 opening sentence is a crisp summary, and the Args list is scannable and well-structured. Each parameter line adds distinct value without redundancy, making the description both concise and complete.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters and an output schema for return structure, the description fully covers invocation semantics. It also warns that query does not search content, preventing a common misuse. This is complete for an agent to select and use correctly.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: source_type values ('devdocs', 'local', None), include_large threshold and default, downloaded_only default, and query's matching behavior and scope. This is essential and effectively communicated.

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 tool lists all available documentation sources with optional filtering. The verb 'list' and resource 'documentation sources' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings like search_docs (content search) and get_document (retrieval).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (to see documentation sources) and includes an exclusion: the query parameter 'does NOT search document content,' implying that for content search you would use a different tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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