knowledge.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '列出' (list) implies a read-only enumeration, and the parenthetical adds useful structural context about how packages are categorized, but there is no statement about cost, side effects, or output volume. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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 core action front-loaded and the classification detail packed into a parenthetical. No filler and no 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the return shape (e.g. a list of package names with their categories). It gestures at this via the guide/templates/states taxonomy but never says what a returned entry looks like, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 knowledge packages that are currently loaded. The parenthetical clarifies the two package categories (guide = context face, templates/states = runtime face), which helps an agent understand what will come back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling knowledge.guide, leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.

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 alternatives such as knowledge.guide, harness.list, or sys.capabilities. The description only says what the tool returns, not under what circumstances an agent should reach for it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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