List knowledge documents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context about document source types and source keys, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, authentication requirements, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 compact fragment with no filler words. It front-loads the resource and scope, and every clause adds meaningful detail about what the tool returns.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema provided, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The mention of source keys and document categories adequately frames the result set without needing to explain return values, since the output schema exists.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and no parameter semantics are needed since there is nothing to document.

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 identifies the resource (documents in the company's Mira knowledge base) and the specific categories returned (crawled pages, uploaded files, synced sources). It is a clear list operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from semantically similar siblings like search_company_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to choose this over search_company_knowledge or whether there are any exclusions, filters, or prerequisites.

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