yupao_capabilities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context beyond them: this tool makes no request to 鱼泡, which means no authentication, no rate-limit exposure, and no remote side effects. It does not say whether the capability list is static or reflects runtime state, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

It is one compact sentence in two clauses, front-loading the three capability states and then the key constraint. Nothing is wasted, and nothing important is buried.

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?

With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it says what is enumerated and that no remote call occurs. The one thing an agent cannot infer is the shape of the returned data, such as whether capabilities come back as names with status flags; the description does not close that gap, but the gap is small for an introspection 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly spends no words on inputs, which 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 gives a specific verb ('查看') and a specific resource (capabilities), broken down into three concrete states: implemented, verified, and not-yet-enabled. It clearly does not overlap with the action-oriented sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it. It falls just short of 5 because it never states whose capabilities these are, namely the MCP server's own feature set, although the clause '不请求鱼泡' strongly implies that they are local.

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?

'不请求鱼泡' tells the agent that this tool is a cheap local call with no network round trip, which implicitly makes it safe to call before other operations. However, the description never says when to prefer this tool over simply attempting a sibling action, and it names no alternatives or prerequisites. The usage is therefore implied but not stated.

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