get_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the batch limit, but does not describe return format, error handling, permissions, or behavior with invalid/duplicate IDs. This is minimal for a read 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?

Two short sentences: the first identifies the action and resource, the second states the batch limit. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema. The description conveys purpose and batch capability, but lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral details. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the ids parameter is well-documented (array, 1-20 items, no duplicates). The description adds only the batch size, which duplicates schema info, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('获取' / retrieve) and resource ('知识库详情' / knowledge base details), listing example fields like description and recommended questions. This distinguishes it from get_knowledge_list, which likely lists knowledge bases, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_knowledge_list or search_knowledge_base. It only states that it supports querying 1-20 knowledge bases, which is a capability, not a selection criterion or exclusion.

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