capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists what information is returned but does not state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or non-destructive. The nature of the tool strongly implies a query, but the description never explicitly confirms that it performs no mutations or has no external effects.

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 line that lists the four content categories directly. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or unnecessary prose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description effectively describes the return content (tool list, format matrix, limitations, runtime status). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect, though it lacks detail on the structure or granularity of the output. For a zero-parameter meta-tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents them (empty object). Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing parameter-related, which is appropriate because no parameters exist.

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 explicitly names the resource content: tool list, supported format matrix, limitations, and native runtime library status. It clearly distinguishes this meta-tool from the project-specific siblings (project_inspect, il_read, etc.) by focusing on environment-wide capabilities rather than any single artifact.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state that it should be used to discover available tools or formats before calling other operations, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is only weakly implied by the tool's name and content, but not articulated.

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