List knowledge bases

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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating the server cannot create, edit, or delete knowledge bases. It adds the workspace-level scope and expected return fields, though it does not mention pagination or error behavior; for a zero-parameter read-only list, this is a minor gap.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: it front-loads the core listing behavior, then provides alternative tool routing, then states the capability limitation. There is no filler or redundancy.

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-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the scope, the returned fields, alternative routing, and the read-only constraint. Nothing essential for invoking or interpreting this tool correctly 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, so there are no parameter semantics to document beyond the schema. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies.

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 the explicit verb 'List' with a specific resource ('knowledge bases'), scopes it to the Ringg workspace, and names the returned fields (id, name, type, creation time). This clearly distinguishes it from get_knowledge_base, which targets a single knowledge base.

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 routes the agent to get_knowledge_base for a specific knowledge base's document inventory and to attach_knowledge_base for associating one with an agent. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates the workspace-level listing purpose.

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