list_available_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of documentation sources with metadata, which is reasonably transparent for a read-only listing operation. However, it doesn't disclose whether authentication is required, what metadata fields are included, or how the list is ordered.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and output qualifier. No filler or redundant phrasing, and it is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential function: enumerating documentation sources with metadata. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't mention what metadata is included or how the list relates to the sibling getter tools, but these are minor for an overview-oriented 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents the absence of arguments. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available Flywheel documentation sources') with an explicit qualifier about metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on retrieving specific documentation types (e.g., get_fw_gear_docs, get_bids_guide).

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 this tool is for discovering available documentation sources, which contrasts with the sibling getters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives, such as 'use this first to see what docs exist' or 'use get_* for a specific doc.'

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