openwebui_list_knowledge

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 states that the operation lists collections and specifies the return fields, which implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, but 'List' is a strong signal and no side effects are suggested.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence provides useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention potential pagination or filters, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 begins with 'List all RAG knowledge base collections in Open WebUI', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like openwebui_get_knowledge by emphasizing 'all'. It also states what it returns (names, IDs, descriptions, file counts), which fully clarifies the purpose.

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 phrase 'List all' provides clear context that this is the tool to use when you need a complete inventory of RAG knowledge collections. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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