jekyll_include_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does address the two salient risks for a Liquid-facing tool: it is read-only and it never executes Liquid. It omits return shape and ordering, but for a zero-parameter enumeration the safety profile is the material disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the exclusion, then the safety note. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 no-param, no-output-schema listing tool this is close to complete: scope, exclusions, and behavioral guarantees are all present. A note on what the returned entries look like (paths vs names) is the only real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the unfiltered nature of the listing. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Liquid includes) with the exact location (_includes), and carves out the components/ and sections/ subtrees by naming the dedicated tools that own them. An agent can distinguish this from jekyll_include_get and jekyll_component_list without opening any schema.

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 exclusion clause effectively routes the agent: if you want components/ or sections/ includes, use the dedicated tools instead. That is clear context, though it never explicitly says when to reach for jekyll_include_get versus this list tool.

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