pcb_get_feature_support

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query and signals the output is a list ('功能列表'), but it does not disclose potential failure modes, whether the bridge connection is required, or any side effects. This is basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence in Chinese that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and directly conveys the purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and context. It partially does by stating the result is a feature list, but it omits details about list contents, possible errors, and when to use the tool. Sufficient for a trivial no-param getter, but not fully 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty input schema is fully consistent with a no-argument capability query.

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 '查询 bridge 支持的功能列表' clearly states the action (query) and the resource (list of features supported by the bridge). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like pcb_bridge_status, though it does not explicitly mention the format or consumption of the returned feature list.

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 alternatives such as pcb_bridge_status or other inspection tools. There is no mention of preconditions, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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