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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that results are visibility-filtered to the caller's workspace and enumerates the summary payload (id, name, description, status, doc/chunk counts, embedding model). It doesn't address pagination or result-size limits, 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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the listing scope front-loaded and the follow-on routing placed last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned summary fields, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains unstated is pagination/ordering behavior and what an empty result means, which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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% for the single workspace parameter, including the token-vs-API-key nuance, so the schema carries the burden. The description only says 'active workspace' and adds no format or default-override detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists every knowledge base') plus the visibility scope ('in the active workspace the caller can see'), which separates it from workbench_kb_get and workbench_kb_search. It even names the return fields, so an agent knows this is the discovery/list tool rather than a content fetch.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (enumerating KBs visible to the caller) and explicitly routes the follow-on action: 'Use an id with workbench_kb_search to retrieve content.' It does not contrast with workbench_kb_get or explain when listing is preferable to searching, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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