list_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output fields and gives no behavioral details such as default behavior, read-only nature, pagination, or side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and output fields. It is efficient with no unnecessary text, though it could be slightly expanded to include parameter context without losing conciseness.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description mentions the output fields which is helpful. However, it omits the parameter entirely (adapter), leaving a gap in completeness. Overall adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% (the description does not mention the 'adapter' parameter at all). With low coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to add any meaning beyond the schema. The optional parameter with default 'auto' remains unexplained.

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 the tool lists knowledge base case indices and specifies the fields returned (id, title, category, triggers). This is specific verb+resource, and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling list_* tools, the resource 'knowledge base case index' is distinct enough for unambiguous purpose understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_adapters or list_consultants. The description does not include any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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