kb_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned aggregate, which is useful, but never states that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor any cost, caching, or scope caveats for a tool that scans the whole knowledge base.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the tool's domain followed by a compact field list. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information (what you get back) leads the clause.

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, the description does the work of enumerating the returned fields, which is the key thing an agent needs for an aggregate tool. It stops short of clarifying whether counts are scoped to the caller or the whole corpus, a minor gap.

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 100% – the single optional 'subject' filter is already documented in the schema as 只看某个科目（可选）. The description adds nothing about the filter's semantics or accepted values, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (知识库) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: subjects, chapter counts, atom counts, tier and status distribution. This clearly separates it from the narrower kb_chapter/kb_atoms/kb_search siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 word 总览 (overview) implies 'use this to get a summary,' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like kb_search or kb_atoms, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable only from the noun.

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