AxKnowledgeBase_list_private_knowledge_base_papers

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 well: it discloses the default all-papers scope, the self_only restriction, ordering by most recent first, pagination, and that total_pages appears in the structured result. This goes well beyond a bare 'list papers' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives default behavior and pagination guidance in a tight, well-structured format. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple read-only listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: output fields, ordering, default scope, filtering option, and pagination handling. It is complete without needing to describe a formal return schema.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the default lists every paper regardless of ingestor and by connecting the self_only flag to caller-personal ingestion, plus the pagination workflow via total_pages.

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 the papers in the organization's private knowledge graph' with a clear output shape ('title and ingestion date, most recent first'). It also distinguishes itself from search and Cypher query tools, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling knowledge-base search and read tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to see what has been ingested without running a search or a Cypher query.' It also clarifies the default behavior and how to restrict with self_only=True, giving concrete decision guidance for invocation.

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