engine_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of what 'capabilities' contains, whether an engine must be detected/initialized first, or any return behavior.

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?

A single short front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, but structurally there is nothing to trim.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, yet 'capabilities' is never defined. For a read tool that takes an engine pack name and project/workdir, the agent has no idea what information comes back or how it relates to engine_list/engine_options.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (name, project, workdir). The description only gestures at the 'name' concept via '某个引擎支持包' and adds no format or selection detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a verb+resource ('查看...能力' – view capabilities of an engine support pack), which is more specific than a tautology. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as engine_list, engine_detect, or engine_options, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only implied usage is the obvious one from the name; nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over engine_list or engine_options.

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