list_documentation_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose behaviors like pagination, default limits, how the 'section' parameter affects results, or what 'discovered' means.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise but arguably too terse for a tool with optional parameters and sibling alternatives, missing opportunities to add essential context.

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 the presence of sibling tools and optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify when to use this tool instead of search_documentation or read_documentation, nor does it explain parameter semantics. The output schema may cover return values, but the overall context is lacking.

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 description offers no explanation of the 'limit' or 'section' parameters. The agent must rely solely on the schema defaults, which lack contextual meaning.

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 the tool lists documentation pages from the official chezmoi documentation site, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_documentation and read_documentation by focusing on listing all discovered pages.

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 use case is implied through the verb 'list' and the resource, suggesting this is the tool for obtaining an overview of available pages. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use them, leaving some ambiguity.

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