list-docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of transparency. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is clear. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination) are disclosed. The description is adequate for a simple list 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 with no filler. It conveys the essential information concisely, with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple list, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not explain what each list item contains (e.g., just names, or also descriptions?). For a new user, this might be ambiguous. Additional context on return format would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that standard.

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 'List available Kubernetes convention and guideline documents' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available Kubernetes convention and guideline documents'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list-doc-sections' (sections within a doc) and 'list-keps' (KEPs), leaving no ambiguity about what it returns.

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: use this tool to see available documents. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any 'when not to use' or prerequisites. The simplicity of a parameterless list reduces the need for such guidance, but a more explicit mention of alternatives like 'For documents with sections, use list-doc-sections' would improve clarity.

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