kb_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return type (JSON string array of document names) and the scoping behavior when game_name is supplied. It does not state access/permission requirements or that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is implied by 'list' but not declared.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by labeled sections (用途/入参/返回/下一步). Every line earns its place; the labeled structure is slightly formulaic but no content is wasted.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, return shape, and workflow handoff. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing; the only gap is the absence of any read-only/permission statement.

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 single parameter has only a type and default, so the description must compensate. It does: 'game_name 可选；给了就只列该游戏文件夹下的文档' explains optionality and the filtering semantics the schema does not.

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 and resource: list existing Markdown document names in the knowledge base. It is clearly distinguishable from kb_search (retrieves content) and kb_write (creates docs), which it explicitly routes to in the '下一步' section.

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?

Explicitly gives the situation for use ('动手前先看本地有没有这个游戏的资料，避免重复研究') and names the follow-up alternatives kb_search and kb_write. No explicit when-not condition, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide selection.

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