list_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the transparency burden and does so well. It discloses that `search` uses Daktela's global search across title, description, content, and tags, that folder and tag names are resolved automatically, and that pagination defaults and max values are tuned because article records are larger. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 well-organized and efficient. A brief introductory sentence is followed by a structured Args list where every line earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition, and the rationale for the smaller default `take` value is a useful, compact addition.

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 six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description covers all the necessary operational context: search semantics, folder/tag resolution, filtering, pagination, and defaults. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter (`search`, `folder`, `tag`, `published`, `skip`, `take`) receives a clear explanation, including accepted value types, auto-resolution behavior, and default/max limits. This goes well beyond the bare type definitions in the schema.

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 begins with 'Search and list knowledge base articles', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also clarifies the scope by mentioning filtering by keyword, folder, or tag, and the sibling tool `get_article` suggests a distinct single-article retrieval use case, so this tool is clearly positioned as the search/list counterpart.

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?

'Use this to find relevant KB articles by keyword, folder, or tag' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the search-and-list framing distinguishes it from related tools like `get_article` and `list_article_folders`, so the usage guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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