能力详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns side effects and validation status, which are behavioral aspects beyond a simple read. However, it doesn't detail what 'side effects' means or how the version range is represented, and with no output schema, the agent must infer the return structure.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key output aspects: precise parameter Schema, version range, side effects, and validation status. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more explicit about the input parameter.

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 read-only metadata lookup tool with one parameter, the description covers the main return aspects. However, with no output schema and no explicit guidance on how to obtain capabilityId or what the response format looks like, an agent might still be uncertain about the exact output structure. The annotations cover safety, so the main gap is output format detail.

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 must compensate. It doesn't explain what capabilityId is or how to find it, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description's mention of '精确参数 Schema' implies the tool returns schema details for the given capability. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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' = get/retrieve) and resource ('能力详情' = capability details), and lists what it returns: precise parameter Schema, version range, side effects, and validation status. This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cocos_capability_search and cocos_capability_execute, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need detailed capability metadata (Schema, versions, side effects, validation status) before executing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. cocos_capability_search or cocos_capability_execute, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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