doc-bot

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 describes the output (IDs, names, installation details) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it lists only active vs. all docsets). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two clear sentences: the first defines the tool's action and output, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the purpose and output format, but without annotations or output schema, it misses behavioral details like error handling or response structure. For a simple list tool, this is minimally viable but could be enhanced with more context.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 ('List') and resource ('all installed documentation sets (docsets)'), specifying what information is shown (IDs, names, installation details). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'add_docset' or 'remove_docset' by focusing on listing rather than modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'explore_api' or 'search_documentation', which might also involve documentation discovery.

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 implied usage context by stating 'Use this to see what API documentation is available', suggesting it's for inventory purposes. It doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explore_api' or 'search_documentation', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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