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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural facts: the response omits page bodies, the set is limited to text pages, and uploaded files are managed in the app and absent from results. It stops short of stating ordering or any cap on the returned list.

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?

Three compact sentences with no waste: capability and return shape first, then when to use and what to use instead, then the exclusion plus the reason. The parenthetical defining what a page is earns its place by distinguishing pages from uploaded files.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description already specifies the returned fields (ID and title) and what is omitted (body text), which is the key information an agent needs to plan a follow-up call. Combined with the sibling routing, nothing material is missing for a zero-argument list tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies an unfiltered, complete enumeration rather than hinting at filters that do not exist. Nothing further is needed for a no-arg tool.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List every Knowledge Base text page") and immediately scopes the return shape ("with its ID and title, no body text"). It also disambiguates from the two nearest neighbours: `search` with scope knowledge and the uploaded files that are not listed here.

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?

Gives three explicit uses (fetch an ID for knowledge_get_page / knowledge_update_page, or check existence before knowledge_create_page) and names the alternative for content search. No inference is required to pick between this and `search`.

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