agent_capabilities

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

With `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: false` already covering the safety profile, the description adds pagination behavior and the fact that it exposes side-effect information for a given method. No contradiction with the 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose before detailing behavior. It is efficient and without filler, though the semicolon-based structure is somewhat terse.

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 description is adequate for basic selection and invocation, especially with an output schema and read-only annotations, but the ambiguous `group` parameter and the vague 'side effects and next-step help' phrasing leave gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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 compensate. It clarifies `method` and implies `limit`/`cursor` through '分页查询', but leaves `group` entirely unexplained.

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 identifies a specific action: paginated querying of methods, and states that specifying `method` returns the actual input schema, side effects, and next-step help. This is clear enough, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `agent_help`.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use pagination by default, or specify `method` to get detailed schema/side-effect/help information. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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