list_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all knowledge bases' implies a read-only operation returning a collection, but it does not state whether this is safe/non-destructive (though implied), whether pagination is involved, or whether the scope is limited to the current tenant. The behavior is straightforward enough that a score above 2 is warranted, but the lack of any context about response shape or filtering limits it to a 3.

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, grammatically complete sentence: 'List all knowledge bases'. It is maximally concise, contains no filler, and is front-loaded with the action verb. 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 simple list tool with no parameters, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks context about the return value (e.g., what fields are included for each knowledge base) and whether 'all' means across all tenants or the current scope. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the response format. This gap prevents a higher score, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a minimally adequate 3.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 'List all knowledge bases' clearly states the action (list) and resource (knowledge bases), with 'all' indicating scope. While it distinguishes from siblings like get_knowledge_base and delete_knowledge_base by name, it does not explicitly distinguish from the similarly named list_knowledge, leaving slight ambiguity about whether it covers bases versus individual knowledge items.

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. It does not mention that it is the appropriate tool for simply enumerating knowledge bases, nor does it reference other list tools like list_models or list_sessions, or contrast with get_knowledge_base for retrieving specific details.

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