fusion_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Discover' implies a read-only introspection operation with no mutation, which is useful. Still, the description does not state whether it requires authentication, whether output is cached/stale, or whether it reflects a live scan of the running system.

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, well-formed sentence that is perfectly sized for a zero-parameter introspection tool. Every word earns its place, and the key phrase 'native tool schemas' is front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns conceptually (tool schemas). It could add a note about the returned data being a mapping or list, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the call signature. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('native tool schemas') with the context of the running Fusion installation. It is clearly an introspection/capability tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly-named fusion_api_docs sibling.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to know what tool schemas are available at runtime. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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