list_docs

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: it carries NO document bodies (so it is safe project-wide) and it discloses the pagination contract (total_count, has_more, pass offset to continue).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then pagination mechanics. No filler, and it references has_children/path return fields usefully.

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 compensates by naming return fields and the pagination envelope. An agent has everything needed to call it and to continue paging.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics for offset by tying it to has_more in a paging loop, but says nothing about limit or include_archived beyond the schema.

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 a project's documents') and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, slug path, version, last toucher). It also distinguishes itself from get_doc by positioning itself as 'the map' versus a single page.

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?

'It is safe to call on a whole project: use it as the map, then get_doc for one page' gives clear usage context and names the alternative for drilling in. It stops short of explicitly excluding the sibling search_docs, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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