workbench_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the catalog is observed, includes tested status, and documents current limitations, which helps set expectations about reliability and completeness. It does not state whether the tool has side effects, but for a zero-parameter capabilities tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the primary content, and every phrase adds value. 'Excludes world generation' is a useful scoping exclusion in a single short sentence. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the tool provides and what it excludes. It could be slightly more helpful by indicating a prototypical use case, such as checking workbench capabilities before invoking other workbench tools, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 has no parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what will be returned rather than parameter details, which is appropriate here since there are no parameters to document.

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 conveys that the tool returns a catalog of observed features, inputs, tested status, and limitations. It is clearly a capabilities/introspection tool rather than an operation tool, and it explicitly excludes world generation, which narrows its scope. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'Lists' or 'Reports' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as workbench_status or workbench_list.

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 states the content of the tool but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to consult capabilities versus workbench_doctor, workbench_status, or workbench_list, and no explicit conditions or exclusions beyond world generation.

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