List agent capabilities

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it names the sources of capabilities, the supported file extensions, the user/ prefix convention, and the fields returned, which helps the agent trust and use the result correctly.

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 three sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds only high-value details about scope, return fields, and usage intent.

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 listing tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be listed, what each entry contains, and how the results connect to run_poml_capability, so no critical information is missing.

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 nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. The baseline 4 applies, and the description compensates by explaining what the returned path is for, which is the most semantically relevant detail.

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 ('List') and names the exact resource: every capability available to run, including predefined .poml capabilities and user-saved capabilities. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by tying entries to run_poml_capability and clarifying it is not about guessing file paths.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to discover available capabilities instead of guessing file paths. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_pipeline_capabilities, but the focus on agent capabilities and run_poml_capability makes the intended use clear.

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