sabor_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does establish this is a non-mutating introspection call (it describes rather than changes configuration). It does not state whether the config is static or reflects live registration state, whether the response is cached, or the shape of the returned data.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; each phrase carries meaning (configured toolsets vs. actually registered tool surface). It is appropriately sized, though the terminology could be made more concrete without adding length.

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?

With no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it stops at naming the topic. An agent still doesn't know whether the response is a list of tool names, per-toolset configs, or enabled/disabled flags, which matters for a discovery tool with no schema to fall back on.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; no parameter semantics are needed or missing. The description correctly frames the call as argument-free by describing a global inspection of configuration.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Describe") with a concrete resource (configured toolsets and the registered tool surface), which is clearly distinct from every sibling's recipe/shopping-list/mealplan domain. The terms "toolsets" and "registered tool surface" are mildly abstract, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what is reported, so it stops short of 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/introspection call to run before (or instead of) guessing which capabilities exist. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or what to do with the result relative to the sibling recipe tools.

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