List documents in a collection

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: ordering rules per collection, pagination behavior, folder aliasing semantics, and the note that the response reports total and whether more remain. This helps an agent anticipate both output and edge cases.

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 detailed but every sentence contributes, from examples to ordering semantics to the pagination contract. The collection enumeration is slightly bulky but serves as immediate, actionable context for the `type` parameter. It is efficiently structured and not repetitive.

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 list tool, the description covers all needed behaviors: default ordering, pagination, the full collection list, special folder-ish scoping, and the nature of the response. The annotation and 100% schema coverage already handle what happens on the mutation and parameter validation side, so nothing necessary to correctly invoke this tool 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, but the description adds meaningful extra context: it explains that plurals and folder paths work as type values, clarifies the rationale for using `folder` when `type` cannot express a path, and connects `sort` values to real-world behavior (e.g., chronological for events/epochs). This goes beyond the schema descriptions without simply repeating them.

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 states a specific action ('Browse and page') on a specific resource ('any collection in the knowledge base') and clearly contrasts with 'look one thing up', which distinguishes it from tools like get_entity and get_passage. It also lists concrete example queries, making what the tool does unmistakable.

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 clearly says when to use it—'when you want to know WHAT EXISTS'—and gives concrete examples like 'what events are recorded'. It names the alternative use case ('look one thing up') but does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-not/alternatives list.

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