list_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly communicates a read-only behavior via the verb 'List' and the phrase 'before creating duplicates,' implying no side effects. It adds valuable domain context about RAG, which helps the agent understand the tool's role. It does not mention permissions or pagination, but this is a simple list operation and the output schema covers return structure.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief explanation of knowledge bases, and then a direct usage note. Every sentence adds value, and the overall length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is being listed, why knowledge bases matter in the RAG context, and when to use the tool (e.g., before creating duplicates, to find IDs). No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are minimal. The description's phrase 'all knowledge bases in your organization' confirms the scope, and there are no parameter details to document. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 opens with 'List all knowledge bases in your organization,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does. It also adds context by explaining what knowledge bases are (documents, FAQs, web content used in RAG), which differentiates it from sibling tools like add_knowledge_from_text or attach_knowledge_to_agent.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to see what knowledge exists before creating duplicates, or to find knowledge_base_ids for attach_knowledge_to_agent.' It names a sibling tool for a follow-up action, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar purposes.

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