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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by clarifying this is a TypeScript package helper with no HTTP call, and by disclosing the notable payload content (tcode-script-execution plus the allowArbitraryScripts gate). It stops short of describing the shape of the returned constant in detail, which the absence of an output schema leaves partially unspecified.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then layers usage and caveats. Every sentence carries meaning, though the tcode-script-execution and allowArbitraryScripts detail is somewhat extended for a constant-returning helper.

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 no-parameter helper with no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: what is returned, how to use it, and a key caveat about the advertised tcode-script-execution capability. It is largely complete, with only the exact structure of the returned constant left to the reader.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because there are none, and instead spends its budget on return-value meaning, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the TRILOBIO_CAPABILITY constant from @pcc/trilobio — a default capability template for a Trilobio fleet controller.' This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like pcc_trilobio_build_config or pcc_trilobio_validate_options, which transform or validate rather than return a template.

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?

Explicitly states the intended downstream use ('Pass to POST /api/capabilities to publish a baseline liquid-handling capability') and the programmatic path ('import { TRILOBIO_CAPABILITY }'). It gives clear usage context but never names a sibling alternative or a condition for choosing a different tool.

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