list_render_engines

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must convey behavior. It implies a read-only operation by indicating it lists available engines, but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It is perfectly sized for a parameterless tool and does not contain unnecessary details.

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, the description is largely sufficient. It doesn't specify the output format (e.g., a list of engine names), but that is strongly implied by the tool's purpose. For a minimal tool, this level of detail is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, as there are none.

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 '可用渲染引擎。' clearly states that the tool lists available rendering engines. While the name already conveys this, the description is simple and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., list_objects, list_materials). It lacks context about typical use cases, such as querying engines before setting render settings. More explicit usage instructions would be beneficial.

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