kb_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a non-destructive listing operation and the 'indexed' qualifier, but omits what the returned list contains (paths, names, metadata), whether it is recursive, and how multiple knowledge bases are handled when vault_path is omitted.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the optional parameter behavior is stated immediately after, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is borderline adequate, but it lacks return-value details and when-to-use context. An agent could invoke it correctly, but may be uncertain about the shape of the result or how to choose it over related siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter explanation in the description. The description does restate that vault_path selects the knowledge base, which adds minor contextual value, but it does not go beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb ('列出' / list) and resource ('已索引的 Markdown 文件' / indexed Markdown files), making the action clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the listed resource is distinct enough from kb_search, kb_read, and kb_vaults to avoid obvious confusion.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, and names no alternatives or exclusion conditions. The only usage hint is that vault_path can be passed to select a knowledge base, but this is parameter-level guidance, not tool selection guidance.

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