list_kb_sources

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the return structure (categories mapping, kb_version, doc_count), indicating no side effects or destructive actions. It is transparent about listing all documents, but does not mention limitations like pagination or rate limits, which would be expected for a full list.

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 a single sentence that directly states the action and includes an example of the return format. Every word is meaningful and necessary. It is front-loaded with the core function and immediately useful to an agent.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: the core action and the return structure. However, it does not clarify the scope of 'knowledge base' (e.g., global or per-user) or mention potential performance implications for large datasets. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the output structure, which is not in the schema (no output schema provided). Since there are no parameters, the description effectively compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 every document in the knowledge base, grouped by category.' This is a specific verb ('list') and resource ('documents in the knowledge base'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'retrieve_qa_knowledge' which focus on QA, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description is clear, there is no statement about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in various contexts. The use case is implicitly straightforward but not guided.

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