knowledge_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only states the literal action without disclosing any additional behavioral traits (e.g., read-only guarantee, pagination, auth requirements, potential cost). Listing is implicitly read-only, but the description adds no value beyond the action itself.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and quickly mentions optional filtering. It is concise with no wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values, but it doesn't. It also does not mention dependencies like repository being required for repository scope, though the schema covers that. The description is too minimal to be fully contextual for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'scope and prefix' as filters, but this doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already describes for these parameters. It doesn't enrich the parameter understanding.

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 says 'List knowledge documents', which is a specific verb and resource. The mention of optional filtering by scope and prefix distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_search (which likely searches) and knowledge_get (which likely gets a single document).

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 by stating it lists documents with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks clear context on when to choose this over knowledge_search or knowledge_get, though the verb 'list' gives a hint.

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