execute_capability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that execution may modify the page (what changed on the page) and that low-risk capabilities are refused with a reason. This goes beyond the schema, but it doesn't cover all failure modes (e.g., invalid session) or side effects beyond page changes.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the core action and return value. It lists the result components efficiently and adds the risk restriction without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes value.

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 the output schema and simple parameter set, the description provides sufficient context for a basic execution flow: run a capability, receive detailed results, and be aware of risk-based refusal. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or when to use get_execution_result, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It refers to a 'bound capability' but does not explain the 'arguments' parameter or how it relates to the capability. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function ('Run one bound capability') and specifies the outcome ('return the complete result'), including steps, page changes, verification, and entities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_execution_result (which retrieves results) and list_capabilities (which lists capabilities).

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 gives a clear usage context: to execute a capability and receive a complete result. It also includes an exclusionary rule ('Only low-risk capabilities execute; anything else is refused'), which helps the agent know when execution will not work. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_execution_result for retrieving past results.

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