list_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only list operation and adds one useful detail: reports are auto-generated from finished workflows. It does not disclose side effects or edge behavior, though none are strongly implied for a list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful scope, and the enumeration of content types is dense but clear.

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?

For a simple list operation with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It names the resource, the scope, and the content types. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly say whether omitting 'type' returns all categories or only a default subset.

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 only 50%, so the description partially compensates by listing the exact enum categories in prose, clarifying what the 'type' parameter means. The workspace parameter is already documented in the schema, including auto-creation and default behavior. The description does not state what happens when 'type' is omitted.

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') and a specific resource ('a workspace's knowledge base entries'), then enumerates the content categories: reports, notes, summaries, and chat history. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_workspaces, which return workspace metadata rather than knowledge entries.

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 intended use case is implied by the verb and resource: you use this to list knowledge entries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_workspaces or chat_with_workspace, nor does it describe any exclusion conditions.

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