ragbrain_list_namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions return fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The optional parameter 'tree_view' is not mentioned in the description.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 (listing namespaces with one optional param), the description covers the main action and return types. However, it does not explain the hierarchy structure or the effect of the 'tree_view' parameter, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'tree_view' already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists all namespaces and specifies the returned fields (names, descriptions, counts, hierarchy). It also indicates usage for discovering knowledge areas. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browse_namespace.

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 says 'Use this to discover what knowledge areas are available,' which gives a usage context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist (e.g., browsing a specific namespace).

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