能力详情

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the categories of information returned (version range, side effects, source validation status, historical evidence), which enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool reports without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action verb and enumerates exactly what is retrieved. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the return categories (schema, version range, side effects, validation status, evidence). It is complete enough for a describe tool; a minor gap is not mentioning that capabilityId typically comes from a prior cocos_capability_search.

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 0%, so the description bears responsibility for the parameter. However, there is only one parameter, capabilityId, whose semantics are self-evident from its name and the tool title. The description adds no explicit detail about the parameter but none is critically needed for a single string ID.

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 states a specific verb ('获取' - retrieve) and a well-defined resource: precise parameter schema, version range, side effects, validation status, and historical evidence for a given capability. This implicitly differentiates it from cocos_capability_search (which finds capabilities) and cocos_capability_execute (which runs them), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the need for a capabilityId and the describe-vs-search contrast with cocos_capability_search, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. An agent must infer that this is the follow-up to a search.

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