knowledge_list_knowledges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation as listing from a specific file and indicates the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions (e.g., if the file is missing).

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 concise, front-loading the main action, and uses a clear structure with separate lines for additional details. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (inferred from description), the description covers the purpose, file source, and output structure. It could mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline score of 4 applies per the rubric for 0 parameters.

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 verb 'List all registered knowledge bases', specifies the source file (~/.aix/knowledges.yaml), and details what information is shown (existence and index status). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_list_indexes and knowledge_search.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide preconditions or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, an agent would benefit from guidance on context, such as 'Use this to see available knowledge bases before searching or indexing.'

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