search_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an empty query returns all visible knowledge bases (self-built and subscribed), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature, pagination behavior beyond schema, or any permissions/rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('搜索知识库列表') and then adding the empty-query behavior and use case. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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-search tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the key behavior and use case. It does not describe the response structure, but there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 reinforces the query parameter semantics ('query 传空字符串时返回所有') and adds practical meaning ('知道知识库名称'), going slightly beyond the schema's '知识库名称关键词' to clarify the intended usage pattern.

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 searches a list of knowledge bases, with a specific use case ('用此接口' when name is known but ID is not). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_knowledge_base (which likely fetches by ID) and get_addable_knowledge_base_list.

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 explicit usage context: use this when you know the knowledge base name but not the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you have the ID, use get_knowledge_base). The guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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