get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what is returned but lacks behavioral details such as performance characteristics, error handling, or authentication requirements. However, it does disclose the scope of returned data, which adds some context beyond basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific return values without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what capabilities are returned, which complements the output schema. However, it could be more complete by including behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness, though the output schema may cover return format details.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Return') and resource ('server/addon capabilities'), with explicit details about what is returned (DSL version, enabled integrations, supported ops/formats). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_scene_info or execute_ops by focusing on system capabilities rather than scene data or operations.

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 implies usage for retrieving system capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_scene_info for scene-specific info). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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