List knowledge base entries

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety profile. The description adds useful context about what kinds of sources are included, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, filtering, or potential errors. Given the annotations, this is adequate without being highly 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that communicates the core purpose and the four source categories without any redundant words or tangential details. It is easy to read and appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and the description is enough to understand the basic action, but with no output schema present the description does not clarify the response shape, field names, or whether sorting/filtering is supported. It also does not mention the optional nature of website_id beyond what the schema already says, leaving some operational context implicit.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'limit' states the range and default, and 'website_id' explains its origin and fallback. The description itself adds little beyond reinforcing that sources belong to 'one website', so it stays at the baseline for already well-documented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('sources in one website's knowledge base'), and enumerates the source types ('uploaded text, documents, added pages and crawls'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_knowledge_entry or search_knowledge_base.

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 conveys the general use case—listing all knowledge-base sources for a website—but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as get_knowledge_entry, search_knowledge_base, or add_knowledge_text. The guidance is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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