kb_read

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of context. It is transparent about the *structure* of the returned data, listing specific elements like '修订摘要与链接,' which is valuable behavioral context for a retrieval operation.

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 definition is efficient and concise. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description adds value without being verbose or repetitive of the structured schema definition.

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 that an output schema is expected, the description is highly complete, as it specifies the exact nature of the content (Markdown, metadata points) retrieved. The agent has all the necessary information to attempt a correct invocation.

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?

With a 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate entirely. It excels here by explicitly defining the 'node_token' as a Knowledge Base node token and providing context on its expected origin, which significantly enhances understanding.

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 is exceptionally clear, using specific verbs to list all retrieved data points: real-time Markdown body, headers, path, revision summary, and links. This distinct list effectively differentiates it from siblings like kb_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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. While the description explains the required input source (tokens from kb_search/kb_outline), it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus when a purely content-based tool should be used.

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