list_docks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the access-scoped result set and the return payload (owner-declared codebase hints), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, pagination, or ordering behavior.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that establish the listing and then the routing note; both earn their place. The second sentence's quoted phrasing is slightly informal but remains efficient.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, result contents, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by describing a simple scoped listing.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (LayerDock docks/sites), scopes it to 'you have access to', and adds what the results carry (framework, source root, CMS hints). This is clearly distinguishable from the list_feedback/get_feedback siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('Call this to get a dockId') and names the alternative with its condition: list_feedback no longer requires a dockId, so a cross-cutting 'what is open across everything?' query is a single call. This routes the agent both toward and away from the tool.

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