docs_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists paths and filters by package, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, permissions, or error behavior. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main action, and the second provides key context. Every word is necessary.

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 simplicity, the description is almost complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter. The absence of output schema is acceptable as return format is implied (list of paths). Could mention output format but not critical.

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 a clear description for the single parameter. The tool description adds 'Optionally filter to one package' which slightly reinforces the schema but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'List doc file paths' and connects to the sibling tool docs_read, effectively specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docs_list_packages and docs_search by focusing on file paths.

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 provides clear context by indicating each entry is the path for docs_read, and optionally filters by package. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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