list_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'knowledge bases' are in ServiceNow context, how results are returned, or parameter usage. For a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema description coverage is 0% (parameters have titles but no descriptions in the schema). With 4 parameters (active, limit, offset, query) undocumented in both the description and schema, the agent has no semantic understanding of what these parameters do or how to use them effectively.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases from ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_knowledge_base' by indicating retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., 'all' or 'filtered') which would make it more precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_knowledge_bases' versus 'get_article' or 'list_articles', nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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