Discover capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool finds compact capabilities without loading full schemas, implying a lightweight, likely read-only operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some context but not rich detail.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and key limitation. Every word earns its place with no superfluous information, making it highly concise 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 simple discovery tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core concept but omits practical invocation details like what to use for 'query' or how 'limit' affects results. It is adequate for understanding the tool's high-level function but not fully complete for confident correct usage.

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 input schema has a 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all. While the schema defines 'query' as a required string and 'limit' as an optional integer, the description provides no guidance on how to use them, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names only.

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 the specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('compact internal developer capabilities') and adds a distinguishing clause 'without loading their full schemas', which sets it apart from the sibling tools. It clearly communicates what the tool does and its unique value.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you need to discover internal capabilities quickly and do not need full schema details. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is unambiguous and the tool's purpose is distinct from its siblings.

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