List BCQuality knowledge files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by specifying pagination via limit/offset and optional filters, which are behavioral details not fully captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences are used: the first states the core functionality and lists filters, the second adds pagination details. No redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes value. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain typical use cases, how filters interact, or when to prefer list over search (bcquality_search_knowledge). The agent lacks sufficient context to choose and configure the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameter names (layer, domain, etc.) and categorizes them as optional filters, but does not explain their meanings or constraints. The schema provides enums and types, but the description adds a high-level grouping, which is helpful but insufficient for full 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 clearly states the tool lists knowledge files with optional filters, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bcquality_search_knowledge or bcquality_get_knowledge, leaving ambiguity about when to use this vs alternatives.

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 vs siblings or when not to use it. The description lists filters but does not explain scenarios where specific filters are appropriate, nor does it mention alternatives for other use cases.

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