List Document Children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact child types considered and the fields returned, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary action and scope stated first, followed by the return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 a simple read-only operation with output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and result fields. The main gap is the undocumented workspaceId parameter, which prevents full completeness, but the overall context is sufficient for a basic tool.

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 description coverage is 50%: docId has a description, but workspaceId is completely undocumented. The tool description does not mention workspaceId at all, leaving its purpose and necessity unclear. It only implicitly clarifies docId through the phrase 'parent doc,' which the schema already states. Thus the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 tool lists direct children of a document in the sidebar, specifying exactly which child types are included (embed_linked_doc / embed_synced_doc blocks and inline LinkedPage references). It also lists the return fields (docId, title, URL, inTrash), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_docs or get_doc.

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 usage for retrieving immediate children in a document hierarchy, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workspace_tree or get_orphan_docs. It offers no exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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