list_knowledge_bases

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. The phrase 'without exposing private configuration' adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations, but the description does not disclose other behaviors such as output limits, ordering, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds the privacy qualifier, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the core purpose and the one important privacy caveat, and the surrounding structured data covers the remaining invocation contract.

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 an empty schema, so the parameter coverage is effectively complete. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'knowledge bases' are specific and clear, and the qualifier about not exposing private configuration adds useful scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_knowledge_files or read_knowledge_file, but the resource name is distinct enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, such as list_knowledge_files or list_notebooks. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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