List connected data and knowledge assets, including format, row count, sensitivity level, and location, to answer questions like 'what data sources are available' without querying documents or metrics.
【资产目录】列出当前接入的数据/知识资产：格式、行数、敏感级、位置。
【何时用】用户问「现在接了哪些数据」「磁盘上有什么」「有没有订单表」。 【何时不用】要查数走 biz_*，要搜文档走 kb_*。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's scope (current connected assets) and output fields, but does not mention whether the listing is cached, whether it scans live systems, or whether it requires any special permissions. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first line, followed by clear usage sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with section markers improves scannability.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and when not to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of any note about performance, caching, or permission requirements, but these are not critical for a catalog listing tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description adds value by explaining what the returned asset catalog contains (format, row count, sensitivity level, location), which is the closest thing to parameter semantics for a no-arg tool.
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 states a specific verb ('列出' / list) and resource ('当前接入的数据/知识资产'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (格式、行数、敏感级、位置). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kb_search or biz_query_sales.
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 provides when-to-use examples ('现在接了哪些数据', '磁盘上有什么', '有没有订单表') and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives (biz_* for data queries, kb_* for document search). This is exemplary routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.