list_supported_napcat_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scale (140+ actions) and that the result is an Action-name directory, implying a read-only lookup, but does not state explicitly that it is side-effect free, whether it hits the network, or how results are grouped/ordered.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing ':param category:' line is a leaked docstring artifact that merely duplicates the schema and adds visual noise. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 single-optional-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the lookup workflow, and the filtering dimension. It could say more about the shape of the returned directory (names only vs. names plus descriptions), which is the one remaining gap.

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 already 100%, so the category parameter and all six allowed values are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same category list verbatim rather than adding meaning (e.g., what counts as 'ai_and_system'), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource (list of all 140+ underlying Action names supported by the NapCatQQ engine) and gives the reason it exists: to look up exact interface names. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling call_napcat_api, which it feeds into.

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?

Explicitly says to consult it before using call_napcat_api to find the precise interface name, which names the sibling and the triggering condition. It lacks a negative case (when this lookup is unnecessary), so it falls just 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.