list_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the deterministic sorting, the expected item fields (title / description / preview / section), and pagination support. It does not cover boundary behaviors like empty results or total count disclosure, which holds it back slightly from a 5.

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 three brief sentences, with the core purpose stated first, followed by the sorting/format specifics and pagination note. There is no filler; every sentence contributes new information, making it both concise and high-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?

The tool is simple (two optional params, no annotations, no output schema). The description supplies the essential behavioral context: what is listed, the ordering, the item fields, and pagination. An agent can correctly invoke the tool with no missing pieces; the only minor absence (top-level response envelope) is predictable for a list operation.

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?

The input schema already provides complete coverage of both parameters (limit: default 10, max 100; offset: default 0, min 0) with descriptions. The tool description only confirms offset pagination support but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('list Neo-MoFox official docs') and provides concrete detail on sorting and per-doc fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search_docs, get_doc) by describing exactly what an index-style listing operation returns, not a search or a single-doc fetch.

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 context for when to call list_docs: to retrieve the official docs in a paginated, section-ordered manner, with the deployment guide first. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_docs or get_doc, which would elevate it to the full 5 criterion, but the intended usage is clear without exclusion notes.

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