List Knowledge Documents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auth requirements, error cases, and the empty-list behavior, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 tightly packed with useful information, front-loaded with the core purpose and target fields, then requirements, auth, errors, and related tool. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, auth, errors, and the list's content. It stops short of noting pagination or sort order, but these are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.

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% and the schema already explains the appId parameter's format, mode-specific behavior, and optionality. The description restates this in prose without adding new parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('an app's ingested documents'), and the exact fields returned (id, name, current RAG tags). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting that the ids feed update/delete tools and pointing to the site-list equivalent.

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 prerequisites (selected app or explicit appId), valid auth modes (app-token vs B2B with appId), and error conditions (401/403, 404, empty list). Names the related sibling tool for website sources, giving clear guidance on when to use which.

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