list_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral dependency: the tool reports inspections already performed ('Inspect the page first; this reports what that inspection found'), and it frames filtering as optional. It does not disclose error conditions, but for a list operation this is adequate given the output schema.

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, front-loaded with the action, and both sentences add value: one states the function and filtering, the other the prerequisite dependency. No filler or redundancy.

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 exists, return values are handled elsewhere. The description covers the core function, filtering options, and the inspection prerequisite. It does not explain session_id semantics or failure modes, but for a listing tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 property descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions filtering by 'category' and 'maximum risk level,' mapping to the category and max_risk parameters. However, session_id is never mentioned, leaving its purpose implicit only through the phrase 'in this session.' Partial compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'capabilities' and clarifies scope as 'already bound in this session.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like execute_capability and inspect_page by stating it reports what inspection found rather than performing or executing anything.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Inspect the page first; this reports what that inspection found.' This implies the proper sequencing after inspect_page and before execution. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is unambiguous.

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