keepit_list_bundles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what a returned bundle contains — "List all" implies completeness but nothing is confirmed.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description could reasonably say what a bundle is or what the listing returns. It leaves the domain concept unexplained.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description could add or subtract meaning here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all bundles"), making the operation immediately clear. It parallels sibling tools like keepit_list_folders and keepit_list_tags, but never explains what a "bundle" is in Keep It or how it relates to folders/tags, so it stops short of true sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus keepit_list_folders, keepit_list_tags, or keepit_search_items. No prerequisites, filtering options, or exclusions are mentioned; the agent must infer usage entirely.

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