get_jianying_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's outputs (verified, disabled, and not-in-first-version capabilities) and the version detection, implying a read-only check. It does not explicitly state whether it has side effects or requires specific permissions, but the verb '返回' suggests a safe query.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the output categories, the version detection, and a critical usage directive. No words are wasted.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to call it. The explicit 'must call before planning' instruction is an important contextual signal that makes the tool complete for an agent's planning workflow.

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 the schema is an empty object. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and the prerequisite status, which is more than the schema alone provides. The baseline for zero parameters is 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 returns three categories of capabilities (verified, disabled, and not-in-first-version) and detects the local version, using a specific verb (返回) and resource (能力). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on draft creation and templating.

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?

Provides an explicit usage directive: 'must be called before planning', making it clear when this tool is a prerequisite. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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