suggest_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Rank" implies a non-mutating recommendation operation, but the description never confirms it is read-only, says nothing about what state or permissions are required, and gives no sense of what the ranking output contains despite an output schema existing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and the criterion appear immediately. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it sits in, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool is low-complexity (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, against a large sibling set that includes add_capability, the description omits any disambiguation or usage context, leaving real gaps for correct tool selection.

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% for the single required lead_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by describing the output framing ("relevance to a lead"), which implies lead_id anchors the ranking, but it adds no format, source, or constraint details for the parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Rank your capability assets") and states the ranking criterion ("by relevance to a lead"), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling add_capability, so an agent must infer that this reads/ranks rather than mutates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as add_capability or draft_proposal, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that capability assets must already exist). The agent is left to infer the usage context entirely from the one-line purpose.

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