sd_get_capabilities

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

The description adds 'runtime-probed' indicating the dynamic nature of the data, complementing the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). This provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone convey, though the description is brief.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without fluff, appropriate for its simplicity.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers the necessary information for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 reads a 'runtime-probed capability matrix and verification status', specifying the exact resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on nodes, connections, or other aspects of the graph.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, the simplicity and self-explanatory nature of the tool make the usage implied: call to retrieve capability information. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but it's adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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