glyphhold_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Discover' weakly implies a read operation, but it does not state whether authentication or specific permissions are required, whether the call is safe and non-destructive, or what the response shape is. These are material gaps for a discovery endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the opaque term 'GH2 features' reduces communicative value.

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 tool, the description gives a rough inventory of what is discovered, which is minimally adequate. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should clarify what 'GH2 features' and 'permitted spaces' mean and what the agent can expect to receive, so clear gaps remain.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Discover') and lists resources ('permitted spaces, defaults and GH2 features'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'GH2 features' is undefined jargon and 'permitted spaces' is ambiguous, leaving an agent unsure what the tool actually returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many CRUD siblings.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. 'Discover' implies a read-only inspection call, but the agent is not told whether this should be called at session start, after authentication, or only when searching for capabilities.

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