pylon_get_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with names and article counts, which is useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling that would be important for a read operation.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what knowledge bases are and what the return includes, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or limitations to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all knowledge bases from Pylon'), with additional context about what knowledge bases contain (help articles, FAQs, documentation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pylon_get_knowledge_base_articles' by focusing on the bases themselves rather than their content, though not explicitly named.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's focus on retrieving knowledge bases for customer access, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pylon_get_knowledge_base_articles' or other get tools. It provides basic context without exclusions or prerequisites.

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