yuque_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination, but does not state what the returned list contains (e.g., metadata vs. full content), whether docs are flat or hierarchical, or any error/authorization behavior. The schema already exposes limit/offset, so the description adds minimal behavioral transparency.

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 instantly communicates the core function and a key feature (pagination). Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the agent is left without details on the response format, what fields are returned, or how the namespace should be constructed. The description is too terse to be fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It identifies 'namespace' as a repo namespace and 'pagination' as limit/offset, but does not explain the required format of the namespace or how limit/offset interact (e.g., default, maximum, or offset meaning). This leaves the agent with only the parameter names and schema constraints.

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 action ('List docs'), the resource ('docs'), and the scope ('under a repo namespace'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like yuque_get_doc (single doc) or yuque_search_docs (search). The mention of pagination adds a specific distinguishing feature.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list docs within a particular repo/namespace. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when *not* to use it, such as for searching or retrieving a single doc.

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