List Shelby Doc Pages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this (e.g., it mentions filtering but not pagination or return format). With annotations covering key safety aspects, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for the limited additional value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes optional filtering details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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's low complexity (a simple list operation), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks output schema details, but for this type of tool, the description suffices without needing to explain return values.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (prefix as an optional filter, limit with default and constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Shelby documentation pages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_shelby_doc_chunk, read_shelby_doc, search_shelby_docs), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 through the phrase 'optionally filtered by path or title text,' suggesting this is for listing with basic filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like search_shelby_docs, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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