Alcove

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the scanning behavior (both alcove/doc-repo and project repository) and the classification logic. However, it omits safety information (read-only status), performance characteristics, or potential errors.

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 information-dense sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core function; the second provides the essential classification taxonomy needed to interpret results. Every word 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return structure through the classification taxonomy (sizes and categories). It adequately covers the tool's complexity, though mentioning read-only safety would have made it complete.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation since the tool operates on the implicit 'current project' context.

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?

Description clearly states the action (List), resource (documentation files), and scope (current project, both alcove and project repositories). The detailed classification taxonomy (doc-repo-required, project-repo, etc.) effectively distinguishes this overview tool from siblings like get_doc_file (specific retrieval) and search_project_docs (content search).

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?

Provides implied usage context through the comprehensive classification system, suggesting this is for inventory/overview purposes. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_project_docs for queries or get_doc_file for specific file retrieval.

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