discover_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a 'progressive' nature without explaining what that means (e.g., pagination, incremental results, statefulness). No mention of idempotency, side effects, authentication, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, making it concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's purpose. Every sentence should earn its place, and this sentence is too vague to be valuable. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and a single optional parameter, the description is overly brief. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'progressive', or how the tool fits into the workflow. The agent is left with many unanswered questions, making the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The description does not mention the single 'query' parameter at all. The agent cannot infer what the query does (e.g., filter, search term, specific capability identifier) or how to use it effectively.

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 mentions 'Progressive discovery of tools, skills, tasks, A2A', which gives a general sense of the tool's domain but lacks a specific verb+resource. The term 'progressive discovery' is ambiguous, and the tool could be interpreted as a search or listing mechanism. It is not a tautology, but it is not precise enough to distinguish from siblings like 'skills_list' or 'tasks_create'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'skills_list', 'tasks_get', and 'a2a_card', the agent has no way to determine if discover_capabilities should be used first or selectively.

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