kb_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable information about visibility (only bases shared with the webhook user) and permission requirements, as well as default type behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'list' implies that, and the provided traits are sufficient for this simple tool.

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, consisting of two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. It efficiently conveys scope, visibility, and permission 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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, type filtering, default behavior, visibility, and permission. It does not mention pagination or output format, but those are not critical for a simple list and no output schema is provided.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the default behavior ('По умолчанию возвращает и standalone-базы... и привязанные к рабочим группам'), which clarifies what TYPE='all' does. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Список баз знаний портала' (list of portal knowledge bases). It also specifies the scope (both standalone and workgroup bases). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool kb2_list, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 context about default behavior and a prerequisite (requires webhook 'landing' permission), which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kb2_list, or clear 'do not use when' conditions.

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