List Doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key behaviors: the operation lists data without indicating mutation, and it returns a nested tree with file-level chunk counts. It also adds the cross-tool purpose of chunks_num, which is useful context beyond the schema. It stops short of mentioning data freshness, auth constraints, or potential size limits, but for a simple read/list tool these are minor gaps.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The Returns block is compact and adds only the cross-tool pagination insight that an agent needs.

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 simple, optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states scope, return shape, and the purpose of chunks_num. It lacks explicit routing versus sibling tools, but the output schema and schema-covered parameter leave no fatal gaps for invoking it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the category parameter is fully explained in the schema (optional, null means all, restrict to top-level). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema already does the work; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List indexed categories, subcategories, and files') and immediately clarifies that the result is a nested tree with file entries, which separates it from the sibling list_categories and search_doc. The cross-reference to read_doc further anchors its identity.

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 'chunks_num ... so read_doc's pagination bounds are visible up front' line gives a clear implied workflow: call list_doc before deciding pagination. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_categories or search_doc, nor when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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