crosspad_capabilities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to establish safety. The description adds that it returns capability flags mapped per platform, which is useful context about the return shape. Since an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only nature, the added behavioral value is modest but adequate.

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, focused sentence that conveys the purpose completely with zero filler. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter introspection tool.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the informational content (which capabilities each platform sets) and the readOnlyHint annotation covers side-effect concerns. It could enumerate some Capability enum examples, but that's minor given the output schema is available.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params is baseline 4. The description appropriately clarifies what the output contains (capability flags per platform), though it doesn't enumerate the Capability enum values.

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's purpose: 'List platform capability flags (Capability enum) and which capabilities each platform sets.' It specifies the verb (list), the resource (platform capability flags), and the output nature (which capabilities each platform sets). It distinguishes itself well from the large sibling set, though some siblings like list_interfaces also list metadata, so it isn't perfectly differentiated from all.

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 this is a read-only informational query about platform capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs the many sibling tools (settings_get, list_interfaces, stats, devices, etc.). It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, leaving why one would consult this over similar introspection tools unstated.

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