list_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a basic listing by explaining pagination mechanics ('Read total and has_more, then pass page=1, page=2'), the page_size cap ('capped at 500'), the risk of breaking the 1 MB response limit, and the meaning of status SUCCESS. This provides rich contextual behavior beyond what annotations would typically convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into pagination details, limits, and usage recommendations. Each sentence contributes critical operational information, and the paragraph break improves readability. Although it is longer than a simple one-liner, the extra length is warranted by the paging complexity and does not contain fluff.

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 paging complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers the use case, pagination walk-through, page_size cap, response limit risk, and status field semantics. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema is provided. For a two-parameter paged list endpoint, this description leaves no major gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It explains that page is used for pagination ('pass page=1, page=2, ...') and that page_size has a cap ('page_size is capped at 500 - asking for more does not return more'). While this adds significant value, the default page=0 (from the schema) is not reconciled with the 'page=1, page=2' guidance, leaving slight ambiguity about the starting index.

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 opens with 'List knowledge bases (KBs) - the metadata imported via Data Ingestion, one page at a time,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also explains that each row links a KB to its source, differentiating it from sibling tools like list_sources and list_kb_tables. This is a specific verb+resource with clear distinction from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'use this to go from a source name to a knowledge_base_id.' It also provides usage guidance on pagination and recommends paging to find a specific KB rather than pulling everything at once. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for scenarios where this tool should not be used, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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