typora_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that only "explicitly supported" capabilities are returned, which is useful, but it says nothing about return format or scope of the read.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant padding. Efficient and well-structured.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with annotations covering its safety profile, the definition is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that the return shape of "capabilities" is not described, but no output schema is expected for such a simple introspection call.

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 single targetId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description only alludes to it via "selected Typora target." Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Clear verb ("Read") plus a specific resource ("the selected Typora target's explicitly supported debugging and automation capabilities"). An agent can tell this is a capability-introspection tool, though it does not contrast itself against siblings like typora_status or typora_bridge_status.

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 phrase "before invoking an optional operation" gives an implied sequencing cue, but it never names which operations are "optional" or lists an alternative tool. Usage is suggested rather than explicit.

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