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 so thoroughly: it discloses default scope (all papers regardless of who ingested them), the self_only restriction, most-recent-first ordering, and pagination via total_pages and page. This goes well beyond a minimal listing and gives the agent a clear model of runtime behavior.

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 two tightly organized paragraphs: the first states the core action and use cases, the second covers default scope, filtering, and pagination. Every sentence earns its place, and no information is repeated from the schema.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly: it names the output fields, sort order, default behavior, filter semantics, and pagination mechanism. It also references the related delete tool, making the workflow context clear.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that self_only=True restricts to caller-ingested papers and that page should be incremented based on total_pages. page_size is not elaborated in prose, but the schema already covers its range and default.

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', and specifies the returned fields and ordering. It clearly differentiates this tool from search and Cypher-query alternatives within the same sibling group.

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 states explicit use cases: 'see what has been ingested without running a search or a Cypher query' and 'get a paper's id for delete_private_knowledge_base_paper'. This gives concrete routing guidance and excludes search/Cypher alternatives, which is strong for an AI agent deciding among numerous KnowledgeBase siblings.

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