List solution articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — it discloses that the response is a truncated snippet rather than the body, which prevents an agent from assuming it got full content. Pagination and the 'trash' filter behavior are left to the schema.

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, zero filler, with the output-shape constraint front-loaded and the follow-up tool pointer second. Nothing could be cut without losing routing information.

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, annotations covering safety, and full parameter documentation, the description carries only what it must: what comes back and how to get the full version. The only gap is not naming search_solution_articles for the case where the folder is not yet known.

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%, and each parameter including include_body already carries its own guidance and token-size warning. The description reinforces the snippet-vs-body distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 articles in a folder) and pins down the payload shape: metadata plus a short plain-text snippet, not the full body. That scope statement alone separates it from get_solution_article and from search_solution_articles.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_solution_article when a full article body is needed, which is the main confusion risk for this tool. It does not mention search_solution_articles as an alternative when the folder is unknown, so one meaningful exclusion is missing.

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