get_knowledge_list

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: pagination, return of files and subfolders, and the folder_id prefix requirement. It implies a read-only 'browse' action. Missing details like error handling or authentication are not critical for a list operation.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every clause adds value: root vs folder behavior, pagination, and prefix rule.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description explains the main return types (files/subfolders) and pagination, which covers the core function. Lacks mention of sorting or response structure, but these are not critical for a listing tool with schema-documented parameters.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a small semantic detail (omit folder_id for root) and restates the folder_ prefix already in the schema. This elevates slightly above baseline but does not substantially compensate beyond 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 clearly states the tool browses knowledge base content lists at root or specified folders, returns files and subfolders, and mentions pagination. This distinguishes it from search sibling tools like search_knowledge_base and get-like tools such as get_knowledge_base.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (browsing root or specific folder) and includes a specific rule for omitting folder_id when operating at root. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use statements, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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