kb2_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds useful information about API version and required permissions, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the return behavior such as pagination or sorting.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds necessary technical requirements. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (available KBs) and under what conditions it can be called. It lacks information about the format or fields of the returned items, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-specific detail because there are none.

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 states the resource ('knowledge bases 2.0') and implies the action (listing available ones), making it clear it retrieves a list of KBs the user can access. It distinguishes from siblings like kb2_search and kb2_document by scope, but does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns'.

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 provides prerequisites (REST 3.0, webhook scope 'note', user permission) that indicate when the tool can be used, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like kb_list and kb2_search exist, but the description does not contrast with them.

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