kb_get_doc

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

无注释，描述承担全部责任。它披露了分页行为（默认4000字、truncated时传入next_offset继续读），以及飞书空洞场景（readable=false、body仅导语）等行为细节，比单纯说“读取文档”更透明。但未提及权限或错误处理，留有一定空间。

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?

描述用中文短句和【标签】分块，信息密度高，每句都有实际价值。没有冗余内容，结构清晰，易于快速阅读。

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?

有输出模式，但描述补充了关键行为（分页、空洞），以及使用前提（doc_id来源）。对于中等复杂度工具，描述已覆盖主要场景，但未提及错误处理或特殊返回值，略有不足。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述必须补偿。它解释了doc_id的来源（必须来自搜索，禁止猜）、max_chars默认值及行为，并通过“分页”和“next_offset”暗示offset用法。虽然未全面覆盖所有参数，但关键语义已补充。

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?

描述开头即明确核心功能：“按 doc_id 读取单篇正文（分页）”，动词“读取”+资源“正文”+分页行为清晰，与兄弟姐妹（搜索、大纲、节选）有明显区别。后续补充解释使目的更加明确，没有歧义。

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?

【何时用】部分明确指出“已经拿到 doc_id，用户要看原文/摘要/引用”，并强调 doc_id 必须来自搜索，不得用标题猜，这提供了明确的使用条件和参数来源。虽然未列出替代工具的排除条件，但已足够指导何时使用。

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