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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds useful payload context (ids, kinds, document counts) but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or result limits, so it adds only modest value on top of the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and its returned fields come first, and the follow-up action is the second sentence. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (ids, kinds, document counts) and pagination is fully covered by the schema. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only list tool, though a note on ordering or an empty-workspace case would close the remaining gap.

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% and both parameters (page, perPage) are documented in the schema including the metadata.hasMore hint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (workspace's knowledge sources) with an explicit enumeration of what a source is (help centers, websites, files) and what fields come back (ids, kinds, document counts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_knowledge_documents and search_knowledge.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Use the ids to narrow search_knowledge,' which tells the agent this is the discovery step before a filtered search. It does not, however, contrast itself against the closest sibling list_knowledge_documents, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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