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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral trait: 'this returns one bounded page, not the full table', which clarifies pagination semantics beyond what the schema alone implies. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or if there are side effects. Given the absence of annotations, a score of 3 reflects that it provides some valuable behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('List knowledge bases') and then immediately adds the critical pagination detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description must provide a complete context for the agent to call the tool correctly. It covers pagination behavior but leaves 'active' undefined, does not describe the return format or structure, and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for reliable agent usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'query' has a description). The description partially compensates by explaining that 'limit/offset paginate' and that it returns a bounded page, giving meaning to 'limit' and 'offset'. However, it does not clarify the 'active' parameter, leaving it unexplained. Since the coverage is low, the description should do more to clarify all parameters; it adds value for two but remains incomplete.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases'), which precisely identifies what the tool does and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_knowledge_base' or 'list_articles'. There is no ambiguity or tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer this over 'list_articles' or 'list_catalog_categories'). The only context is a pagination note, which is behavioral rather than a usage guideline.

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