list_knowledge_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It adds context (files are user-linked, useful for emails) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or side effects. For a listing tool, side effects are unlikely, but behavior beyond the name is not detailed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's role and context.

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 an output schema present (not shown) and only one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context for a listing tool. It covers what is listed and why it's useful; remaining gaps (return format, pagination) are likely covered by the output schema.

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%. The sole parameter account_id is only implied by the mention of 'account' in the description, but no explanation of its meaning or usage is given. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 tool lists knowledge files linked to the user's account, with examples (price lists, conditions, product sheets). It distinguishes from siblings like read_knowledge_file by implying a list vs. read action, and the name corroborates this.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: 'use them as a source to answer emails, the info is often here, not in the prompt'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling read_knowledge_file implies a distinction; still, there's no direct 'when not to use' or alternative naming.

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