Audit a knowledge base for duplicate or empty pages, missing content, and overly deep or wide directories, then return threshold-based structure recommendations.
体检：重复页、空页、缺失正文、目录过深过宽，以及按阈值给出的结构建议。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is inspected and that it produces structural suggestions based on thresholds, which is behavior beyond the name. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only (no mutation of the KB), whether thresholds are fixed defaults, whether the run is expensive/slow on large KBs, or whether it has any side effects such as caching.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the overall '体检' framing followed by the concrete check list and then the suggestion output. No filler. It is slightly dense with enumerated items but every clause names a distinct check.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters. What remains missing is the behavioral envelope: whether the audit is read-only, whether thresholds are fixed, and how it relates to kb_status for an agent deciding between the two. Adequate but with clear 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description also implicitly explains why there are none by framing the check categories as fixed, though it does not state that thresholds are non-configurable defaults.
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 opens with a clear metaphor ('体检' / health check) and enumerates the concrete checks performed: duplicate pages, empty pages, missing body text, overly deep/wide directory structure. This is specific enough for an agent to know it is a diagnostic/audit operation, distinct from read siblings like kb_read or kb_outline. It stops short of stating the operation in a precise noun+verb form (e.g., 'audit the knowledge base and report structural issues').
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 say when to run an audit versus alternatives such as kb_status (which sounds like a lighter health/state check) or kb_outline. There are no stated preconditions, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings. Use is only implied by the audit vocabulary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.