List knowledge-base topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint safely, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context beyond this: it discloses that the view reflects the *indexed* knowledge base and surfaces an index build date, signaling the data may lag live sources. This is meaningful behavioral context about freshness.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The resource and purpose are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage cue follows immediately in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless overview tool, this is complete: it explains what will be returned (sections, counts, build date) and when to use it. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations, and there is no output schema to account for, so no return-format detail 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add in terms of parameter meaning, and the description correctly focuses on output and usage instead.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Overview of the indexed Avalanche knowledge base') and details the exact output: top-level sections with document counts and the index build date. This is clearly distinct from search and doc-listing siblings, since it presents an orientation-level summary rather than individual documents.

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 phrase 'Use to orient before searching' gives an explicit trigger condition and sequencing instruction, telling the agent to call this before running a search. It implies the alternative is the search family of tools, though it doesn't name a specific sibling or state explicit exclusions.

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