list_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Returns') but doesn't describe what 'available' means (e.g., all sections, filtered by permissions), the return format (e.g., list of strings, structured data), or any constraints (e.g., pagination, rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks details on behavior, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a simple listing tool, this is the minimum viable, but it could benefit from more context to guide usage effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('available documentation sections/categories'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_doc_content' or 'search_docs', which would require mentioning it's a listing/overview function rather than retrieving content or searching.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this tool is for browsing categories before accessing content with 'get_doc_content' or for when 'search_docs' is more appropriate for specific queries. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicit.

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