add_kb_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats schema information (e.g., local path requires mime_type, URL can be passed directly) and does not mention important side effects, permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens on success. The tool is clearly a mutation (add), but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that captures purpose and usage in under 30 characters. It is concise and well structured, with no wasted words or redundant details beyond what adds immediate clarity.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input modes. However, it does not mention important contextual details such as the array limit (up to 20 files, though in schema), what the response contains, or error conditions. It is adequate but not complete for a mutation tool with no 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's parameter guidance ('本地文件传绝对路径并带 mime_type，URL 直接传链接') is essentially a paraphrase of the schema's content and mime_type descriptions, adding little new semantic information. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '向知识库添加文档时调用' (call when adding documents to the knowledge base). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like get_kb_documents and delete_kb_documents. It also clarifies the two supported input modes (local file path with mime_type, or URL), leaving no ambiguity.

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 says when to use the tool ('when adding documents to the knowledge base') and provides concrete guidance for parameter usage (absolute path with mime_type for local files, direct URL for links). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools and the 'when' clause make usage context clear.

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