list_knowledge_bases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly discloses that it checks Ranger authorization and returns only permitted KBs, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not detail failure modes or pagination, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a brief authorization note, and Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 that the tool has one parameter, a clear purpose, and an output schema (per context signals), the description fully enables an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not need to elaborate further on return values or error handling.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'user' parameter. The description compensates by specifying 'user: Username to check permissions for,' clarifying its purpose and type. This is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 clearly states 'List all knowledge bases the user has access to,' which is a specific verb (list) plus resource (knowledge bases) with a scope (user access). This distinguishes it from siblings like query_knowledge_base and list_policies by focusing on the set of accessible KBs rather than querying content or listing policies.

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 implies the tool is for discovering KBs a user can query, and the mention of Ranger authorization gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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