list_docs

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions sorting by doc_path and lists output fields, but does not discuss auth, rate limits, or performance beyond 'lighter'. Some gaps, but adequate for a read-only list.

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 filler. Every word adds value: version, purpose, output fields, comparison, sorting order. 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?

No output schema, so description lists fields but could specify more about response format (e.g., JSON array). Still covers key aspects for a straightforward list 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?

Single parameter 'repo' with schema description 'Repository identifier' is self-explanatory. Description adds no additional info beyond the schema, but coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a flat per-doc inventory with specific fields (doc_path, section_count, format, byte_size), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_toc_tree.

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?

Directly compares to get_toc_tree, stating this tool is lighter and returns flat data versus full section trees, giving agents clear context for when to choose each.

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