list_knowledge_bases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only that unindexed bases are excluded ('indexed'), with no detail on ordering or whether the result set is paginated or complete. Adequate but thin against the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and its purpose are both stated in one pass. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose and trigger condition. It is complete enough to call correctly, though slightly more on what the returned list contains would round it out.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related claims are made or needed.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (indexed knowledge bases), which clearly separates it from siblings like search_knowledge or preview_knowledge_base. The scope qualifier 'indexed' is useful, but the description does not explicitly contrast itself with the other listing/introspection tools (get_setup_status).

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?

'Before choosing a search scope' gives a clear usage context and implicitly sequences this call ahead of search_knowledge. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of the explicit routing seen in a 5.

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