List docsets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that installed=false requires a filter and that the catalog path is for installable docsets, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the filter is omitted (error vs empty result), whether network access is involved, or the general return shape, leaving behavioral cliff.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packages the alternate mode and a critical constraint in a parenthetical. Every word contributes value.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main execution paths and a key invocation rule. It lacks detail on error behavior when the filter is missing and on the response format, but it is mostly sufficient for an agent to call the tool reasonably.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics not present in the schema: it states that installed=false requires a filter, linking the two parameters in a way the schema does not. This exceeded the baseline.

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 explicitly names the action ('List') and the resource (docsets), and it distinguishes two operating modes: listing cached docsets vs searching the DevDocs catalog. It is clear about its primary functionality, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search' tool, so it stops short of a full sibling-distinguishing statement.

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 description gives clear guidance about how to select each behavior through the 'installed' flag, and it states an important constraint ('installed=false requires filter'). It does not, however, mention when to prefer the alternative sibling tools (e.g., 'search' or 'install_docset'), so it lacks explicit into tool-vs-tool routing.

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