list_knowledge

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds context the annotations don't carry: the side effect of creating the workspace if absent, that the call is recorded as a job in that workspace's history, and that unfiltered results can be very long. The workspace-creation side effect sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint, but because the description discloses it explicitly rather than hiding it, an agent is not misled.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose followed by return shape, filtering advice, and the sibling pointer - every sentence carries information. Density is high and a couple of clauses (the 'only reads, apart from...' aside) interrupt the flow, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (array of id/workspaceId/type/title/content/source/createdAt/updatedAt/relatedEntryIds), ordering, default workspace behavior, and filter tradeoffs. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the consequence of omitting type (all four types, chat turns included) and clarifies that workspace is a name, defaults to "default", and may be auto-created. Slight duplication of the schema's own workspace description keeps it from a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List a workspace's knowledge base entries, newest first', then enumerates the four entry types it returns and how reports/notes originate. It also names the sibling it is not (chat_with_workspace), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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 states when to filter ('filter to "report" or "note" for findings') and why omitting the filter is costly ('chat turns included, which can be long'). It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'To ask a question about the findings rather than read them, use chat_with_workspace.'

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