describe_capability

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

The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read operation, and the description states what information is returned. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, access requirements, or error conditions, though the output schema helps cover the return shape.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core function, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks usage context and parameter sourcing guidance. It does not mention how to find the capability_id or when this tool should be preferred over related siblings.

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 does not explain the capability_id parameter beyond what the property title already implies. It does not mention how to obtain a valid capability_id or any format constraints, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the tool name alone.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('one capability's parameter and connection details'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_capabilities by focusing on a single capability's details, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_capabilities or get_workflow. The phrase 'one capability' implies a single-capability lookup, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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