get_ast_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral transparency. It adequately describes a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing return items efficiently without any fluff.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides complete context about what the tool returns, leaving no gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With no parameters, schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (supported languages, etc.), exceeding the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool retrieves information about AST analysis capabilities, listing specific return items (supported languages, analysis categories, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_code_ast' by focusing on static capabilities rather than actual analysis.

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 querying capabilities before performing analysis, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to call analyze_code_ast instead.

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