get_addable_knowledge_base_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list is filtered by user permissions (当前用户有权限添加内容), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention potential edge cases like empty results or authentication requirements, beyond what the tool name 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 extremely concise: two short sentences that deliver the purpose and usage condition without any filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (knowledge base list) and the specific filter (user with add permission). It doesn't detail the return item structure or pagination beyond schema-provided cursor info, but that's acceptable given the tool's simplicity. Slightly more context about the returned list format could improve it, hence 4.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and cursor) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents the pagination semantics.

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's function: '获取当前用户有权限添加内容的知识库列表' (get the list of knowledge bases the current user can add content to). It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (知识库列表), and adds a usage scope ('仅在未指定目标知识库时使用') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_knowledge_base and search_knowledge_base.

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 tells when to use the tool: '仅在未指定目标知识库时使用' (only when no target knowledge base is specified). This provides clear context and an implicit exclusion (when a target is specified), but it does not name alternative tools explicitly, which prevents a perfect score.

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