List Knowledge Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it lists 'text documents' from the 'fixed knowledge-base configuration', clarifying that the list reflects a static configuration rather than dynamic state.

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 wasted words. It directly states the action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description adequately conveys what is listed. The return format is implied by the verb 'List', and the main gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter, though this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 defines a single optional 'limit' parameter (1-2000), but the description does not mention it or explain its effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter guidance.

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 identifies the resource 'text documents' with a clear scope ('fixed knowledge-base configuration'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rag_list_backups (which lists backups) and rag_status (which shows status).

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 implies usage for inspecting the configured knowledge-base documents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rag_list_backups or rag_status. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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