Lua API 辞書

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the distinction between MCP components and Lua API, warning about nil access. No contradiction.

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 though slightly lengthy due to important caveats. It front-loads the main purpose and structures the important note separately, maintaining clarity.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the description explains the tool's purpose and key distinction comprehensively, nothing is missing for effective use.

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?

No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Description correctly focuses on tool behavior without needing parameter details, meeting the baseline for zero-param tools.

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 it returns a static dictionary of Lua bindings, explicitly listing the binding categories. It distinguishes from siblings like dx12_eval_lua by emphasizing it's a reference tool.

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 advises using this tool before writing Lua to check actual readable APIs, contrasting with MCP components. While not exhaustive about when not to use, the context is clear.

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