sw_capabilities

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: '引擎不可用时不会报错，而是如实标注' (when engines are unavailable, it won't error, but marks them truthfully). This adds value beyond the tool name, and with no annotations available, the description carries the burden well. It does not mention side effects, but for a simple read-only capability check, this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral note without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple introspection tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose and the notable non-error behavior. It doesn't elaborate on output format, but the output schema reduces that burden.

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 and an empty schema, so the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Per the baseline for 0 params, this is a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's function: '查看本机可用的仿真引擎，以及不可用的引擎缺什么' (view available simulation engines and what missing engines lack). The verb '查看' and resource '仿真引擎' are specific, and the tool is distinct among siblings focused on scenarios, datasets, and analysis.

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 implies usage for checking engine availability, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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