list_knowledge_bases_detailed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates the output includes detailed metadata but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies what distinguishes this tool from its basic sibling. However, it could mention if pagination or filtering is available.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the description adds meaning by specifying the kind of metadata returned (embedding config, chunk counts, etc.). This is valuable context beyond the empty schema.

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 action (list knowledge bases) and the distinguishing feature (detailed metadata including embedding config, chunk counts, etc.). It effectively differentiates from the sibling 'list_knowledge_bases' which presumably returns basic info.

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 implies usage for obtaining detailed metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this versus 'list_knowledge_bases' or other sibling tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or any specific prerequisites.

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