list_knowledge_files

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 adds a meaningful behavioral detail not in annotations: 'hides metadata files by default'. This informs the agent about default result filtering, which is valuable for predicting output. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single 11-word sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key default behavior. No wasted words; every element 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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description's job is minimal. It successfully adds the crucial default-behavior context. The only gap is the lack of usage differentiation from search_knowledge_file, but that falls under usage guidelines and doesn't impede a correct call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the structured data carries the burden.

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 verb and resource: 'Find document filenames in a knowledge base'. This clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_knowledge_bases (lists bases) and read_knowledge_file (reads content). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you need to find document filenames. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of search_knowledge_file as a content-search alternative. The guidance is functional but not explicit.

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