knowledge_list_inbox

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. It states the tool lists files but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'uncompiled' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, earning its place efficiently.

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 of listing files (which may involve permissions, filtering, or output details), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return format, error handling, or how 'uncompiled' is defined, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 implies a 'workspace' parameter by context ('in a workspace inbox'), but with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, it doesn't add detailed meaning beyond what the schema minimally provides (e.g., format or examples for 'workspace'). The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure, but the description offers limited compensation.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('uncompiled files in a workspace inbox'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'knowledge_list' or 'knowledge_list_workspaces', which might also list items, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.

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 like 'knowledge_list' or 'knowledge_search'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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