ghl_kb_get_files_by_knowledge_base_public

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: it requires a Sub-Account (location) token and the 'knowledge-bases.readonly' OAuth scope, and it flags that pagination is needed to reach full result sets. It stops short of noting rate limits or total-count behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then labeled WHEN TO USE / RETURNS / endpoint / auth / scope / pagination sections — each line is scannable and earns its place. The endpoint, version-header and source-file line is mild metadata overhead rather than agent-facing guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers auth requirements, OAuth scope, pagination mechanics and the general return content, and annotations handle safety. With no output schema, 'RETURNS: the file list' is thin about the actual payload shape (file fields, total count), which is the one remaining gap.

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%, so the schema already explains limit, offset, search, lastFileId and knowledgeBaseId. The description only restates that limit/offset are pagination params, adding mild strategy guidance but omitting the search and lastFileId semantics that matter for choosing a paging mode — baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all files by knowledge base') plus scope ('Lists files uploaded to a knowledge base'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling write/read tools (uploadFile, getFileById, deleteFile), so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 WHEN TO USE block names the exact situation ('need to see uploaded documents') and routes to three named alternatives with their own conditions ('use uploadFile to add a file', 'getFileById for one file', 'deleteFile to remove one'). That is explicit when-to-use plus alternatives, nothing left to inference.

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