Doco List Documents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the pagination behavior ('分页') and the filter scope, but does not disclose any additional side effects, authorization needs, or limitations beyond what annotations and schema provide. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 that conveys the essential purpose and pagination without superfluous words. Every element carries meaning, so it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 full schema coverage, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It does not mention how filters combine or that all filters are optional, but those details are available in the structured fields and do not critically impede correct invocation. Sibling differentiation is missing but handled under usage guidelines.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all seven parameters, including q, limit, cursor, locale, folder_id, include_variants, and knowledge_base_id. The description groups these into higher-level concepts (search by knowledge base/folder/keyword) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 ('搜索') and resource ('文档列表'), and identifies the key filtering dimensions (knowledge base, folder, keyword) plus pagination. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like doco_search and doco_search_v2, so it misses the top tier.

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 implies usage by describing the function, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as doco_search or doco_get_tree. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer suitability from the tool's name and schema.

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