knowledge.guide

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. '读取' implies a read-only operation and the content surface is described, but it says nothing about required permissions, where pack identifiers come from, or return behavior. It adds useful context but not full transparency.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action and the when-to-use guidance front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and timing. It is incomplete on how an agent obtains a valid 'pack' value and what form the guide content takes, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 is one required parameter ('pack') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says to use the pack corresponding to the app; it does not explain the format, source, or valid values of a pack identifier.

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 states a specific verb (读取) and resource (知识包的 guide), and even enumerates the guide's content areas (业务流程/使用时机/注意事项). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling knowledge.list.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: '用某 app 前先看对应包的 guide' (read the corresponding pack's guide before using an app). That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool.

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