ghl_list_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cursor-based pagination and the returned fields, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or describe how the pagination cursor is returned in the response.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: scope ('for the location'), pagination ('cursor-based'), and return fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 three optional params and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and pagination behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning how the next cursor is exposed in the response, but it is sufficient for most listing scenarios.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including descriptions for limit, query, and lastKnowledgeBaseId. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_knowledge_base or knowledge base mutation tools. It also specifies the return fields, making the purpose 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 clearly signals when to use the tool—when listing knowledge bases for a location. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ghl_get_knowledge_base or ghl_list_faqs, but the listing intent is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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