list_knowledge

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description explicitly says 'Read-only.' It also specifies the return fields (title, source URL, chunk count), providing transparency beyond 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the main action, listing return fields, and providing context. No wasted words, well-structured.

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 a single required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, and how it fits into the broader set of knowledge management tools.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The schema's parameter description already references list_connections. 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?

The description clearly states 'List the knowledge documents imported for a connection.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge documents'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_knowledge or delete_knowledge.

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 provides context about knowledge docs being searchable business context and mentions add_knowledge and add_knowledge_url for adding. It implicitly guides usage but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like list_connections.

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