Report Studio capabilities

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

The description discloses caching after initial probe, the refresh parameter to force re-probe, and error handling for unsupported calls. It lacks an explicit statement that the tool is read-only, but this is strongly implied. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information (purpose, caching, refresh, error handling). No wasted words.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, caching, refresh, and error handling. It does not specify the return format beyond 'capability and version,' but this is a minor omission. The sibling tools provide clear context.

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 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'refresh' parameter. The tool description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the refresh behavior in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reports Studio RPC feature support (capability) and version, which is a specific verb+resource. It is well-distinguished from sibling tools that perform actions like scripts, apply, browse, etc.

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 should be used to check capabilities before calling other tools, mentioning that unsupported features return capability errors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, though the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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