list_docs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds that it is version gated (v1.55+), sorted by doc_path, and returns specific fields. No contradictions.

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 with no extraneous text. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second provides differentiation and ordering. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields, ordering, and version requirement. For a simple listing tool with one parameter, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand behavior.

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 single parameter 'repo' is well-described in the schema ('Repository identifier'). With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not add further semantic value beyond stating it is for an indexed repo.

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 it provides a flat per-doc inventory with specific fields (doc_path, section_count, format, byte_size). It explicitly contrasts with get_toc_tree, which returns full section trees, making it easy to distinguish.

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 mentions get_toc_tree as a heavier alternative, implying use cases where a flat list is sufficient. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other siblings like search_titles or get_doc.

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