list_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are metadata only, current documents sort first, retired documents are always present and annotated with retired_at plus rename lineage. It stops short of disclosing pagination or result-size 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the prefix example, then ordering and retired-document behavior. The parenthetical is dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and the retired/renamed edge cases an agent would otherwise be surprised by. Pagination and the shape of returned metadata are left unstated, which is the main remaining 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the 'prefix' parameter has no schema description, so the description's 'doc_id prefix filter, e.g. threads/' carries the load for that parameter. It also clarifies include_retired's semantics ('always listed... this flag does not hide them'), reinforcing the schema note rather than contradicting it.

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 ('List continuity documents') and narrows the scope with 'metadata only', which implicitly separates it from read_doc/read_doc_history. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 implies enumeration use via the prefix filter and ordering rules, but never states when to choose this over read_doc, read_doc_history, or read_doc_history/restore_doc. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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