mcquest_list_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It opens with 'READ ONLY', states exclusions for dependency/generated directories and non-Markdown files, and reports that it returns relative file paths. This goes beyond a simple list operation and gives the agent a clear safety and scope model.

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 compact: four short sentences, with the most important reading-safety flag first, followed by scope and return type. Every sentence adds functional information. It is not overly verbose, though the second sentence could be merged somewhat without damage.

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 modestly complex tool with three optional params and an output schema, the description covers the important functional boundaries: read-only, Markdown only, generated-dir exclusion, and relative-path returns. The output schema presumably specifies the result format, so the absence of that detail is not a concern. Minor gaps remain around how path is interpreted and whether the listing is recursive, but these do not undermine invocation.

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 provides zero descriptions (0% schema description coverage), and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'path' and 'pattern' are only implicitly tied to 'under a project directory' and 'Markdown files'. The behavior with 'max_results' is entirely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of parameter guidance.

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 uses a precise verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Markdown documentation files under a project directory'), and makes an explicit exclusion ('non-Markdown files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcquest_list_files, which lists all files. The action and scope are unambiguously stated.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use to discover available documentation before reading specific files.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call the tool and even suggests sequencing relative to read_doc. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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