浏览全部能力

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite (must load the SKILL) and that it reads from a capability registry. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the return format or behavior when the skill is not loaded. The verb 'list' implies a safe read, but robust behavioral detail is lacking.

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 concise with two sentences and no filler. However, the main purpose appears in the second sentence, following the prerequisite, so it is not ideally front-loaded. Nevertheless, each sentence provides necessary information.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core functionality and a prerequisite, but it does not specify return values or behavior when no category is provided. With no annotations, these gaps leave some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema has a single 'category' parameter with enum values and a description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description only reiterates the ability to filter by category, which adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema is complete.

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 '列出能力注册表中的全部精选能力（可按分类筛选）' with a specific verb (list) and resource (all curated capabilities in the capability registry). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capability_search by focusing on broad listing and overview rather than targeted searching.

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 a clear prerequisite (load the deveco-unified-mcp SKILL before use) and states its purpose is '供发现与总览' (for discovery and overview), which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like capability_search or specify when not to use it.

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