pvsyst_capabilities

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'actually available in the installed CLI' usefully signals that results reflect live installation state rather than documentation, but it says nothing about output shape, whether calling it has side effects, or how to interpret missing commands.

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 no wasted words. The bracketed category prefix costs a few characters but aids grouping in a 77-tool inventory.

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, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description conveys enough to call it and to know what kind of answer to expect. Slightly more detail on the return format (command names, option identifiers) would make it complete.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; the empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus a clearly bounded resource (commands and option names available in the installed CLI). It is distinguishable from siblings like pvsyst_list_projects or pvsyst_license_info because it is self-introspection rather than an operational or license query, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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 '[Setup & License]' prefix implies this is a discovery step early in a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer it should call this before attempting commands it is unsure about, but that is inferred, not stated.

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