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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the name-only search limitation, the fact that bodies require a separate read call, and the always-on vs. on-demand behavior of canon/ files, including the size-budget context. This goes well beyond the minimal expectation for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the search caveat, the read_knowledge routing, the canon/ behavior, and a direct usage instruction. No redundancy with the schema or filler content.

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 3-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, output fields, search semantics, sibling routing, and the canon/always-on vs. on-demand distinction. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining returned value semantics ('names, slugs, sizes, folders') and the significance of the canon/ folder (injected into chat and skill gen, size-budgeted), which enriches the folder parameter beyond the schema. It also reinforces the search parameter's name-only constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List knowledge files and folders'), the scope ('for this company'), and the returned fields ('names, slugs, sizes, folders'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that search matches names only and that bodies are read via read_knowledge, so an agent can pick the correct tool without opening the schema.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Use when discovering what knowledge exists before reading a file.' It also names the alternative for reading content ('read_knowledge by slug') and clarifies the canon/on-demand distinction, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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