Check connection status, index size, last sync time, and pending deletion proposals; optionally probe Feishu to verify permissions before relying on the knowledge base.
查看连接状态、索引规模、上次同步时间与待确认的删除提案。任何不确定时先调用它。
Args: probe: 是否实时访问一次飞书，验证权限是否仍然有效（默认只读本地，不发请求）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| probe | No |
| 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 at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the default path is purely local with no network request, and that probe triggers a live Feishu call to re-validate permissions. It does not describe failure/error behavior or latency cost of the probe, which is the remaining gap for a no-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?
Two front-loaded sentences state the payload and the routing rule, then a single arg line. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant clause (when unsure, call this first) is placed early.
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 no explanation, yet the description still previews the four status categories. Combined with the probe semantics and the default no-request behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does completely: probe is defined as whether to hit Feishu live to verify permission validity, with the default (false) explicitly explained as local-only with no request. That is more than the bare boolean schema conveys.
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 (查看连接状态/索引规模/上次同步时间/待确认删除提案) and enumerates exactly what the tool reports. That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like kb_search, kb_read, kb_audit, and kb_sync, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.
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?
Gives an explicit routing rule: 任何不确定时先调用它 (call this first whenever uncertain), which is a strong default-selection heuristic for a 12-tool family. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer kb_audit for history), so it is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.