List knowledge base articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine insight: with a query the tool scans across product, keywords, category, section and content, which hints at the cost/scope of a scan. It still says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering.

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 short sentences, no filler. The scan-scope detail is the only substantively useful content and it is not buried.

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 six fully documented parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin. It does not explain the paged maxPages/itemsInPage interaction or what a returned summary item looks like, which are the main remaining ambiguities for a list tool.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes beyond the schema by naming the exact fields the 'query' parameter matches against (product, keywords, category, section, content) — a detail the schema omits. The other five parameters are left to the schema.

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 opens with a bare noun phrase, 'Knowledge base articles,' which essentially restates the name and title rather than stating a verb. The second sentence does clarify the tool's filtering behavior, but the core 'what it does' (list/retrieve articles) is only implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_department or list_tickets, nor any statement of prerequisites or when it should not be used. The query sentence implies a search use case but never frames it as a decision criterion.

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