Should I include all relative publications in my manuscript?
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.