get_addable_knowledge_base_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are filtered by the current user's permission to add content, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (e.g., cursor handling) or the exact structure of returned data, which might be relevant for a list tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and then adding a usage condition. There is no wasted wording, and every sentence contributes value.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies what the list contains (knowledge bases with add-permission) and when to use it. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly incomplete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (limit and cursor), both with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 function: getting a list of knowledge bases the current user has permission to add content to. It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (知识库列表), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_knowledge_base by adding the permission and 'add content' scope.

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 provides an explicit usage condition: '仅在未指定目标知识库时使用' (only use when a target knowledge base is not specified). This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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