list_supported_napcat_actions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the catalog nature and its scale (140+), implying a read-only lookup, but never states that it is side-effect free, nor how results are grouped/returned. Adequate but leaves the safety profile to inference.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but a raw Sphinx-style ':param category:' directive has leaked into the description text, which is a structural artifact rather than clean prose. Still short and readable overall.

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 one-optional-param catalog tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (action name directory) and its size. Minor gaps remain (whether results are grouped by category, whether descriptions accompany names) but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the description's category text is an exact duplicate of the schema enum, adding no format, default, or behavioral detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (列出/list) and resource (NapCatQQ 官方引擎支持的全部 140+ 个底层 Action 名称目录), and quantifies the scope. It explicitly positions itself relative to the sibling call_napcat_api, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 clause '方便在使用 call_napcat_api 前查阅精确的接口名' clearly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one. It gives positive routing context but no explicit exclusions or negative guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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