get_capabilities_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is free, local, does not access the network, and incurs no charge. It also explains the section-selection behavior and return categories, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe side-effect absence beyond implication.

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 long but densely packed with essential routing information, front-loaded with usage triggers and key constraints (free, local, no cost). All content earns its place, though the heavy parenthetical lists make it denser than strictly necessary.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return structure, including entry points, pipeline stages, review gates, QA tools, optional boosts, billing, and common requests, plus the section filter behavior. It also gives a concrete misuse example to anchor correct usage, making it effectively complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single optional section parameter. The description adds value by explaining what each section value contains (entry_points, pipeline, review_gates, etc.) and restating the filter behavior, going beyond the bare enum names in the schema.

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 identifies this as a '功能地图' (capability map) that answers 'which tool should be used when' rather than describing what a individual tool does. It explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tool descriptions and provides a concrete failure example, making its purpose and differentiation unmistakable.

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 names explicit trigger conditions: first contact with the server, when clients ask what the server can do or where to start, and when unsure which tool fits the material. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when you already know the exact tool' exclusion, but the contrast with tool descriptions implies this boundary clearly.

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