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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds value by specifying the output composition (nodes, edges, capability index) and characterizing the result as a snapshot, giving the agent a clearer model of what invoking the tool returns. No contradiction with 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every element—snapshot, node/edge/index contents, and planning purpose—adds useful information without redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value expectations; it provides a useful high-level breakdown. However, it does not explain how the optional parameters shape results or when this graph should be chosen over sibling capability tools, leaving moderate gaps for an autonomous agent.

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% and the description does not mention limit or min_similarity at all. The agent must infer their meaning from parameter names and constraints, with no added explanation of how they affect the returned graph.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource ('Capability Graph snapshot'), including its contents (nodes, shared-capability edges, capability index). It also states the intended use case ('for agent planning'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_capabilities and search_tools.

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 phrase 'for agent planning' gives a clear context for when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternative tools for capability listing/searching, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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