Lists documentation entries by category, product, or indexed RP1 GitHub repository so you can browse available docs and filter titles by language or query.
[docs] 列出某一分类下的文档，或已索引的 RP1 GitHub 仓库（manual 传分类名，或 rp1/github/repo）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 语言，默认 zh | |
| query | No | 可选标题过滤 | |
| manual | Yes | 分类关键字（如 概览、部署、SDK）、产品名（roboto-origin/roboto-01），或 rp1/github/repo 表示 RP1 仓库 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Listing implies read-only and it does distinguish document listing from repository listing, but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination, recursion depth, or what an empty/unmatched manual yields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the bracketed domain prefix; no wasted wording. Minor redundancy with the schema's manual description is the only inefficiency.
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 three-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core concept but not return format or pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%, so lang, query, and manual are already documented in the schema. The description restates the manual value forms (category name or 'rp1/github/repo') without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('列出'/list) and resource (documents under a category, or indexed RP1 GitHub repositories), and clarifies the dual mode via the manual parameter. It does not name a sibling (docs_list_manuals, docs_search_docs) to draw the boundary, so it stops short of 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus docs_list_manuals, docs_search_docs, or docs_get_page. The clause about passing a category name or 'rp1/github/repo' as manual is parameter syntax, not a selection rule, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.