alga_kb_articles_list

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

The readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the pagination trait ('one page at a time'), but says nothing about default page size, sort order defaults, or total-count behavior that would matter for iterating a result set.

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 tight sentences with the resource and the pagination constraint front-loaded and zero filler. The filter list is dense but readable, and nothing needs trimming.

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 nine-parameter, no-required-argument list tool with no output schema, the description covers the filtering story but leaves the pagination and sorting controls undocumented. It is adequate to start a call but incomplete for an agent that needs to page through or order results deliberately.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it names five filter dimensions (search, category, type, audience, status) that map onto five of the nine parameters, adding real meaning. However, page, limit, sort, and order receive no explanation at all, and no defaults or enum values are described.

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 knowledge articles') plus a scope constraint ('one page at a time'), which separates it from the sibling alga_kb_articles_get that returns a single article. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use to browse or filter by search, category, type, audience or status' gives an implied usage context, but there are no exclusions, no mention of when to prefer alga_kb_articles_get for a single record, and no prerequisites. An agent can infer the browse/filter case but must guess the boundaries.

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