yuque_web_list_docs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that authentication is cookie-based and no membership is required, and that it returns a richer field set. But it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior (limit/offset are in the schema), or the exact shape of the response beyond a few field names.

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 compact run of clauses that front-loads the key distinction (richer fields, no membership) and the endpoint. The trailing Chinese reference is short but might be considered extraneous; overall it is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: authentication mode, membership requirement, field richness versus the alternative, and the endpoint. It lacks a few details like pagination hints or specific response fields, but those are partly covered by the schema and the endpoint reference provides a path to more information.

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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the required book_id implicitly referenced by the endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 documents in a repo') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling yuque_list_docs by noting it returns richer fields (draft_version, editor_meta, read_status, etc.). It also names the exact endpoint, making the scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear context: 'Cookie-based' and 'No membership required', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus the standard list_docs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer the v2 tool over this one, so an exclusionary condition is missing.

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