Astra: capabilities and granted scopes

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds value by specifying the exact UI path (Astra → Settings → Integrations → Local API) and what the report covers. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides actionable diagnostic context, though it doesn't detail output format.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a concrete use case. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters, read-only annotations, and a simple reporting focus, the description covers the purpose, usage scenario, and scope of the report. It's complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by outlining what the report includes (scopes, features, limits), which is useful even without parameters.

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 ('Report') and resource ('Astra Companion API scopes, features, and current limits'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on capabilities and diagnostics rather than playback control.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Useful for diagnosing a permission error: if a tool returns insufficient_scope...'. This clearly indicates the diagnostic context and implies when alternatives (the control tools) would be used instead.

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