kb_atoms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only listing, what ordering or pagination applies, what happens when filters match nothing, or what 'limit' defaults to — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 parenthetical line with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. But at four undocumented parameters it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and four parameters, the description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs. Nothing says what an 'atom' record contains or how results are ordered or bounded.

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 names three of the four parameters (subject, tier, status) as filters, which is genuinely useful, but adds no format or accepted-value detail and ignores 'limit' entirely. Partial compensation for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 resource ('原子清单' / atom list) and a filtering capability, which is a recognizable verb+resource shape. However, 'atom' is unexplained domain jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish this from the overlapping siblings kb_search, kb_overview, or kb_chapter.

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 guidance on when to use this listing tool versus kb_search or kb_overview, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The filter hint implies a browsing use case but never says so explicitly.

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