list_knowledge_bases_full

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 reveals the scope (including shared knowledge bases), the dual ID formats and their usage contexts, the unique entry point status, and the authentication requirement. It does not cover rate limits or error cases, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently conveys ID format usage, uniqueness, and authentication requirements. Every clause contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides the essential context: what the list contains, the two ID variants and their intended uses, and the configuration requirement. It does not describe the full response envelope, but for tool selection and invocation it is sufficiently 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 already fully describes the single optional parameter (need_folder_number) with its default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool retrieves the complete knowledge base list, including subscribed shared bases, and specifies that it returns two ID formats for different downstream tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being positioned as the only entry point for knowledge base IDs.

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 declares '这是获取知识库 ID 的唯一入口' (this is the only entry point for getting knowledge base IDs), and gives direct instructions on which ID format to use with which tool. It also mentions the IMA_COOKIE prerequisite, making it clear when and how to use the tool.

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