get_knowledge_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 pagination behavior, return contents (files and subfolders), and root directory handling. It does not cover authorization, error handling, or sorting, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 brief, front-loaded, and free of fluff. It packs the essential behavior, pagination, and folder_id guidance into a single clear sentence.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description offers a decent overview of the list behavior, pagination, and folder handling. It does not describe the exact return structure or error cases, but the schema covers parameter details, so it is reasonably complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral nuance by explaining the optional folder_id usage (omit for root) and reinforces the folder_ prefix rule, which is not fully explicit in that a user might not know when to omit the parameter.

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: '浏览知识库内容列表' (browse knowledge base content list) with root or specified folder, paginated returns of files and subfolders. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge_base (search) and get_knowledge_base (single base).

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?

It provides clear usage context: when operating on root, omit folder_id; folder_id must start with folder_ prefix. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the root vs. folder guidance is practical.

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