list_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations don't: the corpus is split into 'website' and 'python-api' halves with different keying schemes ('laser-sdk/memory' site paths vs 'python/' prefixes), which shapes what the agent will actually receive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the corpus model, then the parameter behavior. Every sentence carries weight, though the keying examples ('laser-sdk/memory', 'python/') add length that could be trimmed without much loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description supplies the corpus taxonomy and valid source values an agent needs. It does not mention list size or pagination behavior, which is the only meaningful remaining gap for an enumeration 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 0% and the source property has no enum, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it names the two values ('website', 'python-api') and explains that omitting source defaults to listing all. That is exactly the missing semantics the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every LaserData documentation page, organised by section') and immediately scopes it with the two-halves corpus model. The enumeration nature implicitly separates it from single-item siblings like get_doc, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 final line gives real guidance on the source parameter ('Pass source to see one alone; the default lists all'), which tells the agent how to narrow the listing. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over search_docs, find_examples, or get_related_docs, so usage relative to alternatives is only implied.

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