ima_get_knowledge_base

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the purpose sentence. It does not say whether this is read-only (implied by 获取 but unstated), whether missing IDs error or are skipped, what fields are returned, or what the batch size limits are.

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 no filler, and the resource and keying parameter are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value information — and it supplies neither. An agent cannot tell what 'knowledge base information' contains or how a batch lookup behaves.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does clarify that the 'ids' parameter means knowledge base IDs. It does not, however, resolve the singular/plural mismatch — the description says 'ID' (singular) while the schema requires an array of 1-20 items — nor explain batch semantics or error handling for invalid IDs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve IMA knowledge base information by knowledge base ID. An agent can tell what the tool returns at a high level. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as ima_search_knowledge_bases, ima_get_addable_knowledge_bases, or ima_list_knowledge.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With four knowledge-base-related siblings, the agent gets no help choosing between a lookup by ID, a search, and an 'addable' listing.

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