capabilities_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that risk labels are informational and do not restrict execution, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe authorization needs or side 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The returned artifacts are front-loaded, and the risk-label caveat is placed immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the risk-label note adds important context. However, the missing parameter explanation and usage guidance leave material gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never names or explains capability_ids or probe_version. The mention of operation schemas and versions offers only a weak hint about what capability_ids represent.

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?

States a specific verb, 'Return', and the artifacts returned: operation schemas, supported versions, risk labels, and examples. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling capabilities_search.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to capabilities_search or action_prepare, and no prerequisites. Inspection usage is only weakly implied by 'Describe'.

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