kb_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's added value is that each entry includes file counts and sizes, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens for an empty or nonexistent project.

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 short sentence with no filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return summary appended. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple, annotation-covered, single-parameter read tool, the definition covers what the tool returns (counts and sizes) and its scope. With no output schema, minor gaps remain around pagination or ordering, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden; it implies project_id scopes results to one project but adds no format, source, or validation detail. Baseline 3 is defensible for a one-parameter tool, though the schema gap leaves some room unfilled.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'List a project's Knowledge Bases (collections)' — and even previews the returned fields ('file counts + sizes'). It does not name a sibling, so the boundary against tools like list_folder or kb_search must be inferred from the noun 'Knowledge Bases' alone.

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 project-scoped listing use case is implied by 'a project's Knowledge Bases', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to related tools such as kb_search for content lookup or kb_manage for management. An agent must infer when this discovery call is the right choice.

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