supportpages_list_articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default source routing depends on sign-in/local mode, no prerequisite status/init call is needed, no login should be requested for local listings, and an empty local result does not imply an empty hosted help centre. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then dense but purposeful behavioral rules; every sentence adds a constraint or caveat. Minor cost: the 'next_cursor as after_id' phrasing mixes an output field name with an input param, slightly obscuring the pagination instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers routing, prerequisites, and the key empty-result caveat. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, with only the workspace parameter's role left undocumented.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the semantics of source=hosted and source=local and links hosted pagination to after_id, but leaves the 'auto' default only implicitly described and never explains the workspace parameter, so it compensates only partially.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List existing support articles') and immediately explains the default local-vs-hosted routing behavior, so an agent understands what the tool actually returns. It falls short of 5 because it never names or contrasts the closely-named sibling supportpages_list_local_articles, leaving some ambiguity about which listing tool to pick.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Do not call status or init first and do not ask for login for a local listing,' plus conditional selection rules ('Use source=hosted only for an explicitly hosted inventory request, or source=local to inspect local files while signed in'). It even pre-empts a false inference with the empty-local-result caveat, leaving little to infer.

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