search_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns visible knowledge bases under the current account, including self-created and subscribed ones, which is helpful context about access scope. It also implies read-only behavior via 'search/list'. It doesn't detail pagination or response format, but the schema covers parameters and the operation is inherently non-destructive.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose ('搜索知识库列表'), then gives the key behavior and use case. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words, making it an exemplar of concision.

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 (3 params, no output schema), and the description explains what it does and when to use it. It states it returns a list and implies the inclusion of IDs from the use-case sentence. While it doesn't explicitly enumerate return fields, the information is sufficient given the straightforward nature of the tool. A 4 reflects slight room for mentioning the response structure directly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, limit, cursor). The description adds the use-case context for the query parameter (knowing name but not ID) and the empty-query behavior, which marginally enriches meaning. However, it doesn't add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb '搜索' (search) with resource '知识库列表' (knowledge base list), clearly stating it's a search/list operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_knowledge_base by explicitly noting it is for when the name is known but not the ID, and clarifies it returns all visible knowledge bases with empty query.

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 provides a clear when-to-use: '知道知识库名称但不知道 ID 时用此接口' (use when you know the name but not the ID). It also explains the empty-query behavior for listing all visible knowledge bases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, making the guidance useful but not fully exhaustive.

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