knowledge_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the return shapes for short/medium/full detail levels and mentions filter options. However, it omits defaults (e.g., activeOnly defaults true), pagination behavior, and any side effects, and 'full = raw' is vague.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The semicolon-separated detail levels are efficient, though slightly dense. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more readable.

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 the rich schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and output shapes but leaves out default values, pagination, and an explicit note that all parameters are optional. It is adequate but relies on the schema for complete context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a condensed summary of the detail enum, but it conflicts with the schema (e.g., short is described as id/name/contentType vs schema's id+primary label+status; medium as tags/summary/timestamps vs schema's key summary fields+counts). No additional value is provided for other parameters, and the conflict creates confusion.

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 the brand's knowledge-base items' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like knowledge_get/update/delete and other list tools by naming the resource and detailing the return levels.

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?

Usage is implied (use when you need to list knowledge items), and it mentions filtering by tag, active status, or global scope. However, the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use; the schema's detail description does mention using get/view for a single item, but that is not in the description text.

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