I am a PhD candidate and when i'm writing a manuscript for a conference or journal i have the same question. Let's say my manuscript is about a topic A. When i'm doing my bibliographic research i find lets say 30 papers (or more) relative to the topic A. Should i do exhaustive reference of all of them in my manuscript or i am OK if i mentioned the most important of them or the most representative that proves my point? I have a feel i should include everything but maybe its a thing of my OCDish personality, because it doesn't seem every paper add something so different from another (at least from my manuscript point of view).
For a thesis it is normal to include a much more complete bibliography that results from a literature search. This seems to be what you are describing.
However, for a paper, it is much more normal, and useful, to include only those you need to cite in the work itself; those from which the current work derives. Don't send the reader astray from the advances you present in your paper.
There are a few exceptions, such a the inclusion of an especially seminal background paper on which the whole (sub) field relies, and certain review papers whose intention is to give a broad overview of a topic, rather than, necessarily, to advance it.
It is good, of course, to keep an annotated bibliography for your own future use.