agora_my_challenge_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return structure ('with preconditions and effects') and the determinism ('formal contract, not advice'), but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it depends on membership/state, or whether results vary by caller.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the nature-of-output qualifier second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers intent plus the shape of the result. What is missing is the state/permission context under which the enumerated actions are valid, which matters for a capabilities-discovery tool.

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 single mission_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says 'one challenge', which implies an identifying argument, but it never explains the id, and the mismatch between 'challenge' wording and a 'mission_id' field name adds ambiguity rather than removing 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?

States a specific resource and outcome: it returns the caller's legal next actions on one challenge, with concrete examples (join, submit, vote, abstain, reframe). It is clearly distinguishable from plain action tools like agora_join_challenge or agora_vote_challenge, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'Your legal next actions on one challenge' implies when to call it (to discover what you may do next), and 'Formal contract, not advice' clarifies the kind of answer to expect. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as the individual action tools or agora_get_challenge_result.

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