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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: search matches names and folder-qualified slugs only, not body text; it walks nested folders; omitting search browses a single folder level; and canon/ contains always-on files with a size budget. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, though the parenthetical "names, slugs, sizes, folders" slightly overlaps with the already-stated "files and folders" and adds mild redundancy.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and by explaining folder behavior, search behavior, the special canon/ folder, and the next-step tool for reading bodies. An agent has what it needs to select and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a solid description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description still adds value by clarifying interaction semantics: search walks nested folders, omitting search browses one level, and canon/ is the always-on folder. It doesn't just repeat the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List knowledge files and folders for this company," and names the exact returned fields (names, slugs, sizes, folders). It also clearly distinguishes itself from read_knowledge by stating that it lists/disovers rather than reads bodies.

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 explicit guidance: use this when discovering what knowledge exists before reading a file, use search for name/slug filtering, omit search to browse one folder level, and use read_knowledge by slug to read body content. This provides both when-to-use and when-to-use-an-alternative.

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