knowledge_base_list_all_knowledge_bases_paginated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'paginated' behavior and 'all' scope, which is useful but doesn't elaborate on return format or pagination token mechanics. Given annotation coverage, this adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get all'), resource ('knowledge bases'), and key constraints ('for a location', 'paginated'). No filler or redundant phrases.

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 optional pagination parameters, the schema fully documents each parameter and annotations cover safety. The description clarifies it returns all knowledge bases for a location. While it doesn't detail defaults for limit or the exact pagination token usage, such details are minor and the tool is straightforward enough to be effectively used.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions covering their meaning (limit, query, locationId, lastKnowledgeBaseId). The description adds no extra semantics beyond noting location scope and pagination, which is already implied by the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states the verb 'Get', the resource 'knowledge bases', and the scope 'for a location by location Id' with '(paginated)' indicating pagination behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from knowledge_base_get_knowledge_base_by_id (single record) and knowledge_base_list (broader retrieval). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_base_list or knowledge_base_get_knowledge_base_by_id. While it implies usage for a specific location, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the correct choice from context alone.

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