list_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses the pagination behavior (returns one bounded page), which is a key operational trait. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, auth, or rate limits. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich; the pagination note is the main contribution.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List knowledge articles') and then adds the critical pagination caveat. There is no wasted wording, and the most important operational detail is placed immediately after the action, making it easy to scan.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only the pagination behavior. It does not mention how filters combine, ordering, or any prerequisites for use. Since the schema itself documents query/category/knowledge_base matching, the description is adequate for a straightforward list call but leaves agents to infer behavior for multi-parameter calls. It is not comprehensive but meets a baseline.

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 50% (query, category, and knowledge_base have descriptions; limit, offset, and workflow_state do not). The description explains that limit/offset paginate, clarifying their effect and purpose beyond the schema's default values. However, it does not address workflow_state or other parameters' roles, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap. The value added is real but limited to pagination context.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'knowledge articles'. While there are sibling list tools for other resources (e.g., list_catalog_categories, list_knowledge_bases), the resource name is distinctive enough to avoid ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly call out that this is the only tool for listing articles, so it misses a chance to differentiate from get_article which fetches a single article.

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 provides useful usage context by noting that limit/offset paginate and that this returns a bounded page, not the full table. This tells agents to expect pagination and not assume all results come back at once. However, it does not mention alternatives (like get_article for a single article) or when not to use this tool, so guidance on scenario selection is incomplete.

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