list_docs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses sorting behavior, the absence of section titles/content, version constraints, conditional mtime omission, and the _meta.docs_with_mtime counter. It also explains how to distinguish a partial index, adding substantial behavioral 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and feature version, then uses tightly scoped sentences to add comparison, output fields, and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly compensates by listing returned fields, conditional mtime behavior, sorting, and metadata. The single required parameter is already covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing for invoking this tool correctly.

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 required parameter `repo` is fully described in the schema as 'Repository identifier', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at the baseline since no semantic gap exists.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists a flat per-doc inventory with exact fields (doc_path, section_count, format, byte_size). It explicitly contrasts itself with get_toc_tree, making sibling differentiation unambiguous.

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 names get_toc_tree as the heavier alternative and characterizes this tool as lighter and inventory-only, clarifying when it is appropriate. It does not give exhaustive when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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