List knowledge bases

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the authorization requirement (scope) and the downstream use of the returned ID in create_agent/update_agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded. 'List knowledge bases' states the core action immediately, the next sentence adds a valuable use-case, and the final line covers authorization. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and downstream usage, while the schema handles pagination details. The only gap is the absence of an explicit output shape, but the knowledge_base_id mention partially compensates by signaling what the returned objects contain.

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 100%: limit, ending_before, and starting_after are each fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List knowledge bases', a clear verb and resource. It adds a concrete downstream purpose ('Attach one to an agent with knowledge_base_id on create_agent or update_agent'), which distinguishes it from get_knowledge_base and other list_* siblings by making the output's role explicit.

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?

It clearly indicates the context for using this tool: to retrieve knowledge bases so they can be attached to agents. It also states the required scope ('knowledge_bases:read'). It does not explicitly contrast with get_knowledge_base or list alternatives, but the singular resource makes the use case unambiguous.

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