scf_get_capability_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — findings are returned as deficiencies — but says nothing about pagination, error behavior, or permissions, and no output schema exists to carry that load.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'each returned as a deficiency' is slightly awkward but does earn its place by disclosing return behavior.

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 output schema, the description should describe the return shape; it only hints that findings surface as deficiencies without clarifying the deficiency payload or structure. Adequate for a simple read, but leaves the return contract thin.

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 100% and both UUID parameters are fully documented in the schema with acquisition hints. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one capability test') and its singular scope distinguishes it from scf_list_capability_tests. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the 'one' vs 'list' distinction is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus scf_list_capability_tests or scf_update_capability_test beyond the implicit singular lookup. The schema tells the agent the IDs come from scf_list_organizations/scf_list_capability_tests, but the description itself offers no when/when-not or prerequisite context.

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