env_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '探查' implies a read-only inspection, and the enumeration of probed categories hints at what comes back, but there is no statement of latency, permission needs, or side effects (printer probing can trigger OS-level calls) — a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 naming the capability and its four scopes with zero filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape; listing the four probed categories does this at a high level, but it omits usage context and any indication of result structure. Adequate as a minimum-viable probe tool, not complete.

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 and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level value could be added.

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 (探查/probe) and resource (本机交付能力/local delivery capabilities), then enumerates the probed domains: printer, browser, PDF tools, channels and policies. The domain is clearly distinct from the kb_*/review_*/paper_*/learn_* siblings, though no sibling is named for 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 this should be called, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent gets no signal that this is typically a pre-flight check before paper_build or paper_deliver, which would be the natural usage.

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