功能覆盖清单

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, especially the caveat 'partial 不代表没有可用操作' (partial does not mean no usable operations), which helps an agent interpret coverage results correctly.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds one valuable interpretative caveat. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only coverage tool, the description provides the main data categories and scope ('全部 54 个模块'). It does not detail the return format, but the lack of parameters and the straightforward query nature make the current description mostly sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 clearly states the action ('查看全部 54 个模块...') and the specific resource: scope acceptance, capabilities, independent service tool counts, and historical evidence. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as cocos_capability_search or cocos_operation_query.

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 a high-level coverage overview, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The partial-coverage clarification is interpretive, not usage-routing guidance.

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