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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that a "STALE" status means re-syncing is needed and results may be outdated, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or whether all knowledge bases are always returned.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the primary purpose and then add the crucial ID-source and STALE-status context. Each sentence adds useful information without waste.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, ID sourcing, and one important status behavior. However, it leaves gaps around workspaceId sourcing and the shape of returned knowledge-base entries.

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 sole workspaceId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies workspace scoping through "this workspace's." It does not explain where workspaceId comes from, its format, or why it is required.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List this workspace's knowledge bases." It also distinguishes the tool from get_block_schema by explaining that get_block_schema does not list knowledge-base IDs.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to obtain knowledgeBaseId for knowledge-base-* blocks. It explicitly notes that get_block_schema is not a substitute because it does not list IDs, though it does not state exclusions or other alternatives.

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