mystorax_capability_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose what is returned (a list? a single match? error behavior for no matches?), whether matches are case-sensitive, whether partial matches are supported beyond the vague 'substring', or any operational constraints. The word 'Lookup' suggests read-only but this is not explicit.

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 wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, given the minimal content, it may border on under-specification rather than concise completeness.

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 search/lookup tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description should clarify what the result set looks like and how matches are determined. The description is too thin to be complete for an agent deciding whether this satisfies a user's lookup request, especially with several sibling tools that could overlap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'query' documented as 'id substring or keyword'. The description restates the same semantic ('by id substring or keyword') rather than adding new meaning, but given full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional value added beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lookup') and identifies the resource ('surfaces/capabilities') by id substring or keyword. It distinguishes from siblings like mystorax_surfaces (which likely lists surfaces) and mystorax_axiom_tool_search, but the 'surfaces/capabilities' phrasing is somewhat ambiguous about whether it searches both or whether they are interchangeable.

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 does not state when to use this tool over siblings such as mystorax_surfaces (likely a full list), mystorax_axiom_tool_search, or mystorax_capability_lookup's own search semantics. There is no guidance about when a full list vs a substring lookup is appropriate, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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