List Agentic AI Knowledge Units

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns all knowledge units and includes Evidence-First provenance, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action and fields, and wastes no words. The usage guidance is integrated cleanly at the end.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation and tool selection. The explicit sibling guidance covers the main ambiguity an agent might face.

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 100% for the single optional `locale` parameter, including its enum values and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all knowledge units'), and specifies the returned fields ('slug, category, title, summary and Evidence-First provenance'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling `search` tool by framing the purpose as browsing the domain rather than answering a specific question.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to browse the domain'. It also provides an alternative and the condition for choosing it: 'use `search` when you have a question rather than a slug.' This gives clear, actionable routing guidance.

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