list_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read-only operation by using 'list', but doesn't clarify aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no articles match filters. The description lacks details on return format, error conditions, or any constraints beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which could be seen as efficient but results in under-specification. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it more sparse than appropriately brief. While not verbose, it doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 the complexity (6 parameters with no schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'list' returns, how filters work, pagination behavior, or any operational context. For a tool with multiple filtering options and no structured guidance, this description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 description provides no information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage (parameters are documented but schema-level description is absent). With 6 parameters (category, knowledge_base, limit, offset, query, workflow_state) all undocumented in the description, the agent lacks context on how these filters interact or their practical use. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'List knowledge articles' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'list_articles' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource (knowledge articles) but lacks a clear verb beyond 'list' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_article' or 'list_categories'. The purpose is vague about what 'list' entails operationally.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_article' for retrieving a single article or 'list_categories' for different resources, nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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