hb_kb_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no return format, no pagination, no statement that it is a safe read, and no behavior when agent_id is omitted or matches nothing. Only a bare "list" implies read-only.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical questions unanswered: what entity is actually listed, what the response contains, and whether results are paginated. An agent could invoke it but cannot predict its output.

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% with a single optional agent_id documented as "Optional agent filter", so the schema does the work; the description adds no clarification of what the filter means (filter tags by agent?) or what happens without it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a verb+resource ("List tags"), but the resource is ambiguous against the tool name hb_kb_list and the sibling set (hb_kb_search, hb_kb_get, hb_kb_ingest) – an agent cannot tell whether this lists tags, KB entries, or tag-filtered entries. It also doesn't distinguish itself from hb_kb_search.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as hb_kb_search for content lookup or hb_kb_get for a specific entry. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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