calypso-list-knowledge-buckets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only listing operation and clarifies scope (team tied to the API key), but does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or default behavior nuances beyond the schema. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The bracketed header repeats the tool name, adding slight redundancy, but every other sentence contributes meaningful usage context. It earns a high score for efficiency without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of purpose, usage context, and relationship to other tools. It hints at return values by listing retrievable fields, but does not explicitly describe the response format (e.g., array of objects). This is a minor gap.

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 100% with the includeArchived parameter already described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only mentions the types of data returned (bucket ids, slugs, etc.), which are not directly parameter semantics. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('knowledge buckets'), and scope ('for the team tied to the configured Calypso API key'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explaining its use before uploads and how it complements model discovery.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before uploads when you need bucket ids, slugs, names, member counts, or bucket-store readiness.' It also contrasts with RAG model discovery. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool exclusions, 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.