Reads current valid knowledge content, applicability conditions, or limitations in pages; continue large sections with the returned offset and revision to avoid truncated context.
分页读取当前有效正文、适用条件或限制；section默认content，续页保持section并传next_offset与expected_revision。fields_truncated中的条件用对应section续读；默认12000个JSON正文字符。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| section | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| knowledge_id | Yes | ||
| context_handle | No | ||
| expected_revision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
没有提供注释，因此描述承担了行为披露的职责。它确实披露了非显而易见的内容：默认的 12000 字符预算、基于段的分页以及通过 expected_revision 进行修订固定；但是，它从未说明当 expected_revision 与当前修订不匹配时会发生什么，也没有说明读取的有效期/权限。
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?
它以压缩的单句形式呈现，分页/分段约定被前置，几乎没有冗余词。这种压缩使得几个短语（例如 fields_truncated 子句）对新手来说略显晦涩，但没有任何内容需要删除。
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?
对于没有输出模式、包含 6 个参数的读取工具，它基本足够，解释了续读循环和截断信号。然而，初次调用的上下文仍然缺失：knowledge_id 是什么、context_handle 的作用以及修订不匹配的错误行为没有被涵盖。
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?
模式描述覆盖率为 0%，因此描述必须对此进行补偿。它有效地解释了 section（默认 content）、offset/next_offset、expected_revision 和 max_chars（默认 12000），但 knowledge_id 和 context_handle 完全未记录——六个参数中有两个在任何地方都没有语义。
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?
特定动词+资源：分页读取知识条目的当前有效正文，并且明确列出了三个可读段（content/applicability/limitations）。它将其与他人区分开来，但没有与同级工具 knowledge_search 或 knowledge_use 进行区分，因此尽管范围清楚，代理仍然必须猜测何时读取与搜索。
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?
它给出了清晰的过程性指引：先默认到 content 段，翻页时保持该段，并传递 next_offset 和 expected_revision，对 fields_truncated 中命名的条件使用对应的 section。但是，它从未说明何时选择此工具而非 knowledge_search 或 knowledge_use，也没有排除性说明。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.