List Document Children

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the result (docId, title, URL, inTrash) and the semantic definition of a child, but says nothing about depth limits, pagination, or whether inline references outside the sidebar are included — useful but modest added context.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and child semantics up front, the second gives the return shape. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguity (what a 'child' is) and the return fields. The only real gap is the unexplained optional workspaceId, which is left entirely to the schema and isn't documented there either.

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 50%: docId is documented in the schema, but workspaceId has no description anywhere. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented workspaceId (e.g. whether it scopes the lookup or overrides the doc's workspace).

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 the direct children of a document in the sidebar') and then defines exactly what counts as a child (embed_linked_doc / embed_synced_doc blocks and inline LinkedPage references). This sharply separates it from list_docs, list_workspace_tree, and list_organize_nodes, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 sidebar/child-block framing implies when this tool applies, but it never states when to prefer it over list_workspace_tree or get_orphan_docs, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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