at_knowledge_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly describes the read operation and output fields but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits) or confirm that no state changes occur. Adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

Single sentence with all essential information front-loaded. No redundant phrases. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality and return fields. Minor gap: could mention if results are paginated or limited, but not critical.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters with clear description for 'standard'. The description reiterates the filtering option and adds context about output fields, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 that the tool lists commands in the knowledge base, with optional filtering by source, and specifies the fields displayed (key, name, expected response summary). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like at_knowledge_search or at_knowledge_add.

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 implies use for listing commands with optional filtering, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like at_knowledge_search (for specific queries) or at_knowledge_stats. No when-not or alternative tools mentioned.

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