list_knowledge_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation (list) without explicit read-only hint, and mentions pagination parameters. However, it omits details like maximum per_page, sorting order, or any rate limits, which would be helpful for a list endpoint.

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 extremely concise: one sentence followed by parameter documentation. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It adheres to a clear docstring pattern.

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?

Given it is a list operation with pagination and an output schema exists, the description covers the essentials: what it does, required parameter, and optional pagination. It could be more complete by mentioning any ordering, visibility rules, or pagination limits, but remains adequate for most use cases.

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 0%, yet the description explains all three parameters: group_id (required UUID), page (default 1), and per_page (default 100). It adds default values not present in the schema (which defaults to null), giving meaningful context. Could be improved by noting UUID format or allowed ranges.

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 'List all documents in a knowledge group,' using a specific verb (list) and resource (documents) with scope (in a knowledge group). It distinguishes from siblings like get_knowledge_document (single document) and search_knowledge_group (search).

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 implies usage for listing documents in a group but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many siblings. The purpose is clear, but the agent receives no decision support.

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