get_addable_knowledge_base_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission filtering behavior ('当前用户有权限添加内容'), which is valuable context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a list operation.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides a usage condition. There is zero redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list operation with two pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context sufficiently. It does not explain return structure, but the simplicity and sibling tools mitigate this gap, making it nearly 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 input schema has 100% coverage: both 'limit' and 'cursor' have descriptive text including types, ranges, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the action ('获取' = get) and resource ('知识库列表' = knowledge base list) with a specific qualifier ('当前用户有权限添加内容' = current user has permission to add content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_knowledge_bases_full, which likely lists all knowledge bases without the add-permission filter.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: '仅在未指定目标知识库时使用' (use only when the target knowledge base is not specified). This provides a clear contextual condition, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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