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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints on when the returned search window is valid. The lack of additional behavioral context leaves important gaps.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. The primary action ('Return server capabilities') is front-loaded, and the additional detail about the search window is delivered compactly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return value, and it does only at a high level. 'Server capabilities' and 'current PureGym search window' are named but not detailed, so an agent may not know what fields or format to expect. For a zero-parameter tool this is adequate but still leaves interpretation room.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description adds no confusion about parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names a clear resource ('server capabilities and the current PureGym search window'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_class_types and search_classes, which handle domain data rather than server-level capabilities. Even a null title does not obscure the tool's purpose.

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 when to use the tool — when an agent needs capabilities or the active search window — but it does not explicitly state usage context or contrast it with alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or scenarios where a sibling should be preferred, leaving the inference entirely to the agent.

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