list_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only, side-effect-free list operation and states the contents of the returned 'capability map' as tools and resources. The 'complete' qualifier sets the expectation that the result is exhaustive, which is useful behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with the core action and resource front-loaded, followed by the usage context after an em dash. Every element earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, simple list tool, the description is adequately complete: it states what is returned and when to call it. Without an output schema, slightly more detail about the return structure could be added, but the phrase '完整能力清单' already communicates the expected result well enough.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description has no obligation to explain inputs. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the complete capability list of tools and resources. The parenthetical '(tools + resources)' precisely defines the scope and differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_entities or list_agents.

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 a clear usage context: 'Agent 首次连上时' (when the agent first connects). This gives the agent a concrete trigger for calling the tool. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling appears to perform capability discovery, so the guidance is sufficient.

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