list_knowledge_stacks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or capped, what the default ordering is, or what the response contains. The safety profile is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too sparse rather than too long, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, which covers the main potential gap. However, the unexplained 'limit' parameter and the total absence of usage context leave the definition only partially complete for a tool sitting among many similar list tools.

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 0% and there is one parameter ('limit', default 100) that the description never mentions. Since the parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, an agent must guess whether limit is a page size, a total cap, or something else, and what the maximum is.

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 clear verb+resource ('List Knowledge Stacks') and adds a scope hint ('including Next Gen') that clarifies what the listing covers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as list_personas or list_studio_catalogue, nor from optimise_knowledge_stacks, leaving some ambiguity about the relationship between them.

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 gives no indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or what the alternative is. With ~40 sibling list_* tools, an agent would benefit from knowing which listing is appropriate here, but nothing in the text provides that guidance.

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