get_shape_repair_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it only partly does. 'Read' implies a side-effect-free lookup, and the caveat that discovery is not runtime qualification is a genuinely non-obvious warning about the scope and trustworthiness of the result. However, it says nothing about return shape, whether the capability registry can be stale, auth requirements, or caching.

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?

Eleven words, front-loaded, with no filler or hedging. The terseness is efficient structurally, though the compression is part of why the purpose reads as cryptic rather than because wording was trimmed.

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?

For a zero-argument discovery tool with no output schema, the description is the only place a caller can learn what comes back — the 'typed methods' and the 'gate policy' fields — and it does not say. The one caveat about runtime qualification is helpful, but the definition leaves the agent guessing at the payload it will need to interpret.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is owed here.

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 verb 'Read' plus 'typed methods and gate policy' gestures at a discovery tool, but 'typed methods' and 'gate policy' are unexplained jargon that an agent cannot resolve without already knowing the domain. It tells the reader almost nothing beyond what the name 'get_shape_repair_capabilities' already implies, and does nothing to separate this from sibling discovery tools like get_batch_status or get_queue_status.

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 clause 'discovery is not runtime qualification' is a useful negative constraint — it warns against treating this output as proof that a repair can actually run — but it never states the positive condition for calling the tool or names an alternative. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent has no routing signal.

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