capability_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'reports' information, suggesting a read-only audit, and lists the exact dimensions reported. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is non-mutating, requires permissions, or has any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the 'comprehensive system audit' label, then lists the specific report categories. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to explaining what the tool does.

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 parameterless audit tool without an output schema, the description provides a useful list of the reported dimensions (available, unavailable, official-only, plugin-only, unknown, schema mismatches). It does not specify the exact output format or any prerequisites like an active studio session, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely sufficient.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds context about what the tool reports rather than parameter meanings, which is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool reports a specific set of capability statuses and schema mismatches, using the verb 'reports' and a defined resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like capability_discover or system_audit through this specific enumeration, but it does not explicitly name them.

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 description implies the tool is for obtaining a comprehensive capability audit, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related siblings such as capability_discover, capability_resolve, or system_audit. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name and general wording.

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