写入知识资料

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which are somewhat ambiguous. The description adds clarity by stating that content is added (a write operation) and that identical content is not duplicated (a form of idempotency), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like metadata management or potential side effects, so it's not a full 5.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loads the core function (adding text). However, the phrase '保留来源、隐私级别、版本和内容哈希' is slightly dense and could be clearer, but it earns its place by providing key behavioral context. No wasted words overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, enums, no output schema) and the 0% schema coverage, the description is brief but covers the essential purpose and deduplication. However, it leaves out details like how versioning works, what happens on failed writes, or how to set source_ref correctly, so for a write operation with no output schema, it could be more complete.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description mentions preserving source, privacy level, and version, which implicitly relates to source_type, source_ref, and privacy_label, but it does not define each parameter's semantics or constraints. It adds some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., context for source_type and privacy_label) but leaves gaps for others like content and title.

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 action (adding text to the project knowledge base) and the key characteristics (preserving source, privacy level, version, and content hash), and explicitly notes deduplication. This distinguishes it from siblings like knowledge_search (retrieval) and evidence_add (likely adding evidence to a review), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies the tool is for ingesting user-provided or authorized text into the knowledge base, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like evidence_add or receipt_attach. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied, not fully explicit.

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