list_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: retired docs are retained but hidden by default, and when shown are flagged with retirement date and reason. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe pagination or ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the default-vs-override behavior are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does note 'metadata only' plus the retirement flagging. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only ordering/pagination is left unstated.

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 coverage is only 50% (prefix has no schema description), and the description compensates by explaining prefix as a doc_id prefix filter with an example ('threads/'). include_retired's semantics are reinforced in both places, so the description meaningfully closes the coverage gap.

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+resource ("List continuity documents") and adds a clear scope qualifier (metadata only). It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like read_doc, write_doc, and retire_doc, which are single-document operations.

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?

Explains the key usage condition: retired documents are hidden by default and you pass include_retired to see them. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g. read_doc) or state when this listing is preferable over corpus_recall/semantic_recall, so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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