kb_vaults

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. The phrase '含存活状态与索引进度' provides context that the tool does more than a basic list, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it may trigger refresh, or what '存活状态' checking implies.

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 a single, compact sentence that fully expresses the tool's purpose and the distinguishing output fields. No wasted words or filler.

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 zero-parameter read-like listing tool, the description covers essential purpose but lacks explicit behavioral context like read-only guarantee, possible exclusions, or sibling differentiation. Given no annotations, a short note about read-only status and relationship to kb_list would make it complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema has nothing to add. The description correctly indicates the tool's scope of output without needing parameter documentation.

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 ('列出所有已注册的知识库') with a clear resource and additional detail about what information is included ('存活状态与索引进度'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like kb_list, which would otherwise be a potential competitor.

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 makes it obvious this is a listing/enumeration tool, and the tool name 'kb_vaults' contrasts with siblings like kb_search and kb_read. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over kb_list or whether it is the canonical list tool.

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