qianji_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the capability list reflects only what the current code exposes, and presence of an operation does not mean all its parameter combinations have been validated. It stops short of saying anything about how large or fresh the list is.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope stated first and the interpretive caveat second. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the description only has to establish purpose and the caveat about unvalidated combinations, which it does. A brief pointer that this should precede invoking other qianji tools would have closed the remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty schema.

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 specific verb+resource: lists the operations exposed by the current code plus their limitations. That is clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like qianji_execute or qianji_query. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 statement of when to call this versus qianji_connection, qianji_query, or the other siblings. The second clause is a caveat about interpreting results rather than routing guidance, so the agent must infer that this is a pre-flight discovery step.

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