capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — the contents vary by Toolbag version — but says nothing about size, structure, or how to consume the result (though an output schema exists, so return shape is documented elsewhere).

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the enumeration scope comes first and the purpose clause second. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Everything the running Toolbag exposes in `mset` plus...') but nothing wasted.

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 inputs, an output schema documenting return values, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope and purpose — which it does. The one gap is leaving `mset` unexplained for an agent that may not know the domain.

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; there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource: everything the running Toolbag exposes in `mset` plus the plugin's action list, i.e. a capability/introspection enumeration. It is clear enough to distinguish from action siblings like scene_info or preferences_get, though the term `mset` is undefined jargon and there is no verb to pin the operation down.

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 trailing clause 'for version differences between Toolbag builds' implies the intended use case — checking what a given Toolbag build supports before calling other tools. It never states explicitly when to call this versus status, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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