knowledge_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are filtered by 'accessible' (permission scoping) and exclude documents/vectors, clarifying the output's size and nature. It doesn't detail output format, but for a simple list that's acceptable.

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?

One sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase earns its place by clarifying scope ('all accessible') and filtering ('without documents or vectors'). No wasted words.

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, read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It states what it lists, the scope of the list, and what it excludes. With no output schema, the description still gives enough for an agent to call it correctly and set expectations without additional context.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. No further semantic value is required.

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 states a clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Open WebUI knowledge bases'), and explicitly scopes the result ('all accessible', 'without documents or vectors'). This distinguishes it from siblings that fetch full contents or specific items, such as knowledge_get or rag_get_file.

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 clear context: it lists accessible bases only and excludes documents/vectors, which implies when to choose it over heavier retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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