Evercraft Capability Discovery

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Read-only' simply repeats that. The description adds a scope qualifier ('compatible agent hosts') but does not describe response shape, errors, or availability, so it meets the lower bar set by the annotations without exceeding it.

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 and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. The second sentence, 'Read-only,' is slightly redundant with the annotations, but it is short and reinforces safe invocation rather than adding significant clutter.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, so little additional context is required to invoke it safely. Because there is no output schema, a slightly more concrete description of what 'protocol connection information' includes would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty 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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns protocol connection information for compatible agent hosts, which is distinct from the sibling capability-related tools. It is specific enough to select, though 'compatible agent hosts' is left somewhat vague and the description does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus list_evercraft_capabilities or match_evercraft_capability. 'Read-only' is a safety signal, not a usage condition, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description alone.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs less safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that checkout and payment actions are not available on this server, which helps an agent avoid inappropriate calls.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The out-of-scope note earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is complete. It identifies the resource type, the public scope, and the key limitation without needing details about parameters or return values.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description correctly stays silent on parameters rather than inventing misleading guidance.

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 title states the verb and resource ('List Evercraft public capabilities'), and the description reinforces it as a 'Read-only public capability catalog.' It is clear enough to identify the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools in the description text.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving the public capability catalog and clarifies that checkout/payment actions are out of scope, which is a mild usage constraint. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_evercraft_connection_options or match_evercraft_capability.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds a concrete, high-stakes guarantee — 'Never creates payment or another external side effect' — which goes beyond generic read-only language and is valuable in this domain. 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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and its side-effect profile. The core verb and primary modifier are front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 covers the basics: purpose, major return fields, and safety. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what 'fit' or 'readiness' means or how to interpret the results. It also lacks explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent with a serviceable but incomplete picture.

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 by explaining `intent`. It does not explicitly define what an intent should be, provide format examples, or mention the length constraints. The param name and tool name offer some inference, but the description itself adds little semantic value.

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 states a specific action — 'match a problem to Evercraft public capabilities' — with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_evercraft_capabilities by focusing on matching a problem rather than enumerating options.

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 implies the tool is used when an agent has a problem/intent and needs capability fit, but it never explicitly says when to use this over the siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the choice to inference.

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