get_capability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only; no side effects' and indicates the tool returns component and asset bindings, which is valuable safety and outcome context. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or rate limits, leaving room for more transparency.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second confirms safety (read-only), and the third gives when-to-use guidance with a sibling alternative. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 simple fetch tool, the description provides adequate context: purpose, safety, and usage direction. An output schema exists, so return value details are not necessary. The only gap is the unexplained `server_version` parameter, but this is a minor issue given the overall clarity.

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 already provides descriptions for `model_id` and `capability_id`, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds meaningful context for `capability_id` by pointing to `list_capabilities` as its source, but it does not clarify the required `server_version` parameter, which remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one capability with its component and asset bindings.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool `list_capabilities`, which enumerates all capabilities, by emphasizing that this tool fetches a single capability given an ID.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when you already have a capability_id (e.g. from list_capabilities) and need its full detail.' It also names the alternative for enumerating all capabilities (`list_capabilities`), making the choice between these two tools unambiguous.

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