singapore_get_capabilities

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: only presence of credentials is reported, values are never exposed, and it performs no network I/O. But "No network requests" conflicts with openWorldHint=true, which signals external/open-ended interaction, creating an inconsistency the agent has to resolve. The safety profile from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint is otherwise consistent.

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?

Three terse sentences with no filler, and the privacy/credential guarantee is front-loaded after the resource statement. The first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly weakens the lead.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key trust concerns (no credential values, no network). It still omits the primary question for a 'capabilities' tool — what exactly is enumerated (data sources? authenticated APIs? enabled tools?) — and offers no placement guidance among many siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation ('reports only whether...'), which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 frames the resource as "Local configuration and source availability" and mentions reporting whether credentials are configured, which gestures at the tool's purpose. However, it never uses a verb like "returns" or "lists" and never says plainly that it reports available capabilities/sources, so the agent must infer the payload from the name singapore_get_capabilities. The purpose is understandable but not stated crisply.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the ~60 sibling tools (e.g., as a preamble check before singapore_get_sources or the query_* tools when credentials may be missing). "No network requests" implies it is cheap and safe to call eagerly, but the agent is left to derive that routing itself.

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