kb_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does clearly indicate a read operation ('返回') and lists the exposed data: index status, failed files, last sync time, and model info. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid or multiple vault paths, error cases, or any assumptions about permissions or side effects beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and output categories. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, so every word contributes.

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 covers the core return content: index status, failed files, last sync time, and model info. It is concise enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The main gap is lack of detail about edge-case behavior, such as what happens when multiple vaults are registered and vault_path is omitted.

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 only parameter, vualt_path, has 100% schema description coverage already, including its optionality and absolute-path requirement. The description adds little beyond the phrase '指定知识库' (specified knowledge base), so it does not meaningfully supplement the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('返回' / returns) and identifies the resource (stats for a specified knowledge base). It lists meaningful output categories, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kb_list or kb_search.

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 about when to use kb_stats versus kb_list, kb_search, kb_vaults, or other siblings. The only usage note, about omitting vault_path when a single vault is registered, lives in the schema rather than in the description. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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