chat.list_knowledge_batches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'persisted' and 'canonical combined artifact information,' but does not explain pagination, default limits, filtering semantics, or what distinguishes a 'persisted' batch from non-persisted ones.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. The phrase 'canonical combined artifact information' is somewhat unclear, but there is no fluff or redundant text.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the returned list contains and how to use the parameters. It barely hints at the output ('combined artifact information') and omits behavioral details like limit defaults and filtering, making it incomplete given the complexity of the sibling tools (e.g., start/cancel index, status).

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 already covers both parameters (limit and provider) with clear descriptions, so 100% schema coverage is achieved. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, 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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and resource ('persisted knowledge batches'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_knowledge_batch' (single-read) and 'list_knowledge_files' (files, not batches). However, 'canonical combined artifact information' is vague and doesn't fully clarify what the listed batches contain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_knowledge_batch' or 'list_knowledge_files'. It states what it does but does not specify when it is the right choice or what it should be used for within the broader knowledge-index workflow.

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