ima_get_addable_knowledge_bases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavior — results are filtered to destinations the caller can write to — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result size, permission failures, or whether an empty list is possible. That is thin for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 scoping qualifier front and center; no filler. It is lean rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing pagination and return-value information noted elsewhere.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the definition should at least sketch what each returned entry contains (identifiers, names) and how cursor/limit interact. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot predict the result shape or how to page through it.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions 'limit' (default 50) or 'cursor'. Since both parameters are undocumented in the schema, the description had to compensate for pagination semantics and does not, leaving the agent to guess at page size and continuation behavior.

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 names a specific verb+resource — list the IMA knowledge bases the current user can add content to — and the qualifier '可添加内容' meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like ima_search_knowledge_bases or ima_get_knowledge_base. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 purpose implies the workflow (find a target knowledge base before calling ima_add_note_to_knowledge or ima_upload_file_to_knowledge), but the description never states when to use this versus the search/get siblings, nor any preconditions. Usage must be inferred.

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