knowledge_list

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 it only states a generic list operation. It does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, required permissions, or whether the list is limited to summaries versus full objects.

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 short sentences with no wasted words or repetition. It front-loads the main action and uses the second sentence to clarify the optional filter, making it highly concise and readable.

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 list tool with two parameters, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks return value details and sibling differentiation. Without an output schema, it would benefit from noting the shape of the returned list and how this tool relates to codegraph_list or wiki_get.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the word 'optionally' for the type filter, which is already implied by the schema's non-required status, and provides no additional semantic detail beyond the 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 a specific action—'List knowledge assets for a team'—with an optional filter by type. It is easy to understand, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling listing tools like codegraph_list or skill_list, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as knowledge_get, skill_list, or codegraph_list. It only states what the tool does without any contextual recommendations, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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