rag_list_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that the tool is an alias and provides no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or side effects.

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 a single four-word sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple alias tool and front-loads the only meaningful fact.

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 zero-parameter read-only alias, the description is minimally viable, and no output schema exists to explain return values. It would be more complete if it briefly stated what the alias returns or explicitly said 'use knowledge_list' as the canonical implementation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything and the description has no parameter burden. This matches the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an alias of knowledge_list, which distinguishes it from siblings and points to the intended operation. It does not explicitly restate the underlying verb/resource, but the alias relationship makes the purpose unambiguous if knowledge_list is understood.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this alias versus knowledge_list or the other sibling tools. The alias statement implies equivalence, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selector information.

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