ima_search_knowledge_bases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It reveals the dual-mode behavior (empty query → default listing), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, result size, or permissions.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the useful empty-query behavior is stated up front. It is efficient but under-informative rather than bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, zero schema coverage, and a crowded sibling namespace, the description would need to clarify scope, pagination, and result shape. It covers only the empty-query case, leaving an agent unable to confidently distinguish or invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema has three parameters (query, limit, cursor) with no descriptions. The description explains query's empty-string semantics, but limit and cursor — including why a cursor exists if this is a simple list — are left entirely undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('搜索或列出 IMA 知识库'), but conflates two operations (search vs list) into one tool and never disambiguates against close siblings like ima_search_knowledge, ima_list_knowledge, or ima_get_knowledge_base. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this targets knowledge-base containers or their contents.

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 only usage hint is 'query 为空时按接口返回默认列表' (empty query returns a default list). There is no guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling list/search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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