List Magic Lane documentation pages

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavior: 50-per-call default with a 100 hard cap, offset paging, and the description-truncation rule (cut to first sentence or at a word). It does not discuss ordering of results or whether the index is cached, which would be the remaining 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 purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted, but the middle sentence is a single sprawling run-on with nested parentheticals ("or at a word — where the room ends when its second half has no space") that takes several passes to parse. Splitting mode behavior, limits, and truncation into separate sentences would improve scanability without losing content.

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 five-parameter, all-optional listing tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers the workflow, mode defaults, pagination, and truncation caveat. The only soft spot is the ambiguous truncation phrasing, which could leave an agent unsure whether a description was cut mid-sentence and whether to re-fetch via search_docs.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, and the 3 baseline applies. The description does add the non-obvious conditional default resolution for mode ("sections" only for source "all" with no section filter, "pages" otherwise), which the schema explicitly defers to it — a genuine value-add that keeps this from being pure repetition.

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 ("Browse the Magic Lane documentation index (llms.txt)") and immediately splits the behavior into two named modes with distinct outputs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_doc, search_docs, and read_docs_batch, which operate on individual documents rather than the index.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: "Start with the TOC, then drill into one source/section with mode 'pages'," and routes a narrow case (full untruncated descriptions) to search_docs. What is missing is a stated when-not-to-use — e.g. that full-text or concept lookups should skip this tool entirely in favor of search_docs.

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