kb_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it only tells the agent what content exists, not that this is a safe read-only enumeration, whether the list is paginated, or how large it may be. For a zero-parameter enumeration the risk is low, so this is a modest gap rather than a critical one.

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 being listed is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial zero-arg tool.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the shape of the result (identifiers, titles, or counts) so an agent can chain into kb_search. It identifies the corpus but not the return shape.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional.

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 ('列出'/list) and resource ('知识库资源'), and even names the content scope (Apple HealthKit docs + kingstinct reference), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling kb_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus kb_search, which is the obvious alternative for the same knowledge base. The listing intent is only implied by the verb.

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