ea_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Show' clearly signals a non-mutating, read-only operation. It also sets expectations about the content: capabilities, defaults, and workflow. It does not detail the output format, but for a zero-parameter informational tool that is a minor gap.

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 filler. Every word contributes to scope: 'capabilities', 'defaults', and 'pre-generation workflow'.

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 no-input, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand its intended timing. It could more explicitly connect to sibling tools, but no required information is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not relevant here.

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?

States an explicit verb ('Show') and a clear object ('TradeLab EA capabilities, defaults, and the mandatory pre-generation workflow'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the informational intent distinguishes it from planning, validation, and registry tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'mandatory pre-generation workflow' implies this should be consulted before EA generation, but it never states when to use this tool versus plan_ea_creation, validate_ea_standard, or ea_registry. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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