dayuan_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context by explaining that online=true triggers ticket renewal and CLI version checks (the outbound behavior behind openWorldHint) and that no business data is queried. It stops short of describing what the capability/environment output contains.

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?

One compact sentence with clauses ordered by importance: purpose first, default behavior and the online condition second, scope exclusion last. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon-chained style is slightly harder to scan than separate sentences.

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 one-optional-parameter probe with no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, the online side effects, and the data-access boundary. The remaining gap is that it doesn't hint at what the returned capability/environment information looks like.

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 explain the single boolean, and it does: default is local, online=true is scoped to ticket renewal and CLI version checks. That is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the boolean default, though it doesn't state the cost/latency implications of the online path.

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?

States a specific verb (检查) and concrete resources (只读能力、环境、授权恢复步骤), so an agent knows this is a diagnostic/capability probe rather than a data tool. The closing clause '不查询业务数据' implicitly separates it from the dayuan_read_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear rule for the one parameter: stay local by default, set online=true only when ticket renewal or CLI version checking is required. However, it never says when to call this tool versus dayuan_status, which appears to be the closest alternative, leaving that choice to inference.

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