list_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists documentation and returns metadata, but doesn't mention critical behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and resource, and another detailing the return values. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage context from output details.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on return format or usage scenarios would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filter' parameter documented as 'Optional filter string to search for specific documentation by name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain the filter's usage or format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('List all available documentation sets') and resource ('on DevDocs.io'), with specific output details ('Returns name, slug, version, and other metadata for each documentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_doc_content' by focusing on metadata listing rather than content retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_all_docs' or 'search_doc' which might also list documentation, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions returning metadata but doesn't specify if this is for browsing, filtering, or other contexts, and offers no comparison to sibling tools like 'search_all_docs' or 'search_doc'. This lack of explicit usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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