list_kbs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns all KBs and includes metadata and status, which gives some idea of the operation's scope and output. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it might be paginated, or any rate limits, though 'list' inherently suggests a non-mutating read. Lacks detail on behavioral edge cases.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then adds the output characteristics. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant verbiage or repetition of schema details.

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 zero-argument list operation with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, at what scope, and what the response contains. No additional context about return values is needed because the output schema exists. The tool is simple enough that nothing essential is missing.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify on a per-parameter basis. The phrase 'all knowledge bases' adds a useful scope clarification, confirming there are no filter or pagination parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a 0-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases') and clearly states the scope ('all') and the content returned ('metadata and status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_kb and delete_kb, as well as document-specific tools, without needing to inspect schemas.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use the tool: when you need an overview of all knowledge bases and their state. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as get_document or search_documents. For a simple list operation, the implied usage is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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