Provider Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: profiles declare support statically, and inspection performs no connectivity or model test. This prevents the agent from mistaking this for a live validation tool. It stops short of describing return values or failure behavior (e.g., does it error on unsupported selections?), but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is meaningful added value.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat about no connectivity testing immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly cryptic without the schema context.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained) and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters, the description supplies the one crucial missing piece: that this is a static inspection with no live testing. For a low-complexity, two-optional-parameter tool, this is nearly complete, missing only explicit error semantics.

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 description coverage is 100% – both parameters have detailed descriptions listing accepted backend strings and capability enums. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('configured operation support'), and the second sentence clarifies what it does not do. It doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since none of the other tools perform provider capability checks, but the phrasing 'operation support' is broad enough that an agent must lean on the schema for specifics.

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?

Usage is implied: check support before selecting operations, and reject unsupported selections. The second sentence warns that no connectivity or model test occurs, which implicitly tells the agent not to use this as a health check. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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