功能覆盖清单

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 destructiveHint=false，描述中的‘查看’与之一致。描述未添加注解之外的行为信息，如返回格式、数据量或潜在限制，但鉴于注解已覆盖安全性，基本透明但无额外补充。

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?

描述仅一句话，非常简洁，无冗余信息。但缺乏结构（如分句或段落），且信息密度有限，整体简洁但未充分利用空间。

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?

工具无参数、无输出架构，注解已提供安全信息。描述说明了核心功能，但未明确‘提案’所指，也未说明返回的数据结构或如何使用缺口信息，对于无额外上下文的简单工具略显不足。

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?

参数数量为0，schema描述覆盖率为100%，无参数需要解释。描述本身未提及参数（也不必要），符合0参数工具的基线4分。

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?

描述明确说明该工具用于查看提案全部 54 个模块的实现和验证缺口，动词具体（查看）且包含资源细节（54个模块）。但未提及‘提案’的具体指代，且与兄弟工具如 cocos_operation_query 的区分不明显，因此未达5分。

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?

描述未提供任何使用场景或与替代工具的对比。没有说明何时应使用本工具而非其他查询类工具（如 cocos_operation_query、cocos_scene_query），也没有提及前置条件或后续操作，几乎无引导作用。

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