ima_list_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that folder_id can enter a folder. It does not explain pagination behavior, result ordering, permissions, or return shape, even though limit and cursor parameters strongly imply a paginated list.

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 description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core browsing action. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter documentation, this description is too thin. It should at least clarify the role of knowledge_base_id, limit, and cursor, and how browsing relates to sibling search tools.

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 all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description explains only folder_id, leaving knowledge_base_id, limit, and cursor with no meaning beyond their names.

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 verb and resource (浏览知识库内容) and adds the specific folder navigation behavior. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling ima_search_knowledge or ima_get_knowledge_base, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone when this browse action is preferred.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives such as ima_search_knowledge mentioned. Browsing is only implied by the word 浏览, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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