查看文档分类

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the tool lists documentation categories and implies a read-only action, but it does not describe the output structure, potential side effects, or why the SKILL must be loaded first. The prerequisite is a useful behavioral note, yet overall behavioral detail is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 two short sentences: the first is a necessary prerequisite instruction, the second states the core action with examples. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the operational requirement before the main purpose.

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 simple catalog-listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, gives example output content, and notes a prerequisite. It does not describe the exact return format, but given the simplicity and clear scope, this is a minor gap rather than a significant deficiency.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the empty schema already communicates the absence of inputs. Per calibration rules, zero parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, and the description does not undercut this.

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 tool's function: '列出官方文档库的分类' (list categories of the official documentation library), with concrete examples of categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_search and docs_read, which handle searching/reading content rather than catalog navigation.

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: users must load the 'deveco-unified-mcp' SKILL before use. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., docs_tree) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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