list_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the output schema covers the return shape. The description adds the useful fact that page bodies are excluded (light payload), but says nothing about ordering, pagination limits, or whether game scoping expands or narrows results.

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 zero filler; the payload constraint is stated immediately after the purpose, so no sentence is wasted.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema, annotations, and mostly documented params, the definition covers purpose and payload scope adequately. Minor gaps remain around pagination/ordering and the game-scoping behavior, which an agent would have to infer from the schema.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning — nothing about how 'game' merges general Source 2 pages (which is only in the schema), how 'query' matches, or how 'limit' affects listing. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most of the burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse community documentation pages') and parenthetically defines the return shape (titles, URLs), which cleanly separates it from a body-fetching tool like get_doc. It does not explicitly name search_docs or get_doc, so the sibling differentiation is only implied via 'without bodies'.

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?

'Without bodies' implies the alternative (fetch the page itself with get_doc) for the case where content is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and nothing distinguishes browsing from search_docs + query filtering.

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