document_import_capabilities

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the probe is local, and detected types are withheld unless their headless conversion fixture passes, which tells the agent the output may be deliberately incomplete. It does not cover performance or caching behavior, but the fixture-gating disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler; the key claim (reports observed input types) comes first, with the fixture gate as supporting detail. The phrasing is jargon-dense ('headless fixture gates') but each clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is parameterless and read-only. The description adequately covers what is reported and the caveat on withheld types; only the routing question of when to invoke it is left open, which is scored under usage guidelines.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the probe is run without arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports the exact input types observed from a local Inkscape --list-input-types probe. This is distinguishable from the many document_import_* siblings, which perform actual imports, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus the import tools (document_import_svg, document_import_raster, etc.) or inkscape_status. An agent must infer usage from the word 'capabilities' alone; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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