get_query_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying that no database connection is made, but it says nothing about the shape or format of the returned capability data.

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 compact clause pair, front-loaded with the three capabilities and ending with the key scoping constraint. Every element earns its place with 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?

For a zero-argument, read-only discovery tool with full annotation coverage and no nested parameters, the definition supplies enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that, absent an output schema, it does not hint at what the returned capability description looks like.

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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the empty schema is fully self-describing. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 (查看/view) plus three concrete resources: structured query capabilities, parameter language, and security restrictions. The clause '不连接数据库' implicitly separates it from execute_query/analyze_query siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 phrase '不连接数据库' signals this is a safe, non-executing inspection step, hinting a caller uses it to discover capabilities before invoking query tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative among the many query-oriented siblings (analyze_query, explain_query, execute_query), leaving usage to inference.

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