scf_list_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool lists capabilities without disclosing whether it is read-only, whether pagination exists, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a read operation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose. No unnecessary words or information is present.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, likely a list), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not indicate the structure of the return value or any pagination behavior, which is needed since no output schema is provided.

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% for the required org_id parameter, which is well-documented with format and source instructions. However, the tool description does not reference the parameter or add meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not enhancing it.

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 lists capabilities for an organization, using a specific verb and resource. It provides additional context that capabilities map to systems and evidence, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like scf_list_capability_themes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scf_get_capability_theme or scf_list_capability_themes. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, offering no decision criteria.

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