Get Capability

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so effectively by stating 'Read-only; no side effects.' It also clarifies the result scope (one capability with bindings). It does not mention response errors or auth requirements, but for a simple single-item read operation this is sufficient.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The main purpose appears first, followed by read-only clarification and then explicit usage routing to list_capabilities. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool's behavioral profile is simply a read-only fetch, which is adequately described. Usage context and alternatives are explicit. Since an output schema already exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 describes model_id and capability_id, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that capability_id comes from list_capabilities. The server_version parameter has no schema description and is not clarified in the tool description, though verbose descriptions may come from the schema context. Overall, the description does not significantly elevate parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get one capability with its component and asset bindings.' It also distinguishes itself from list_capabilities by specifying singular retrieval ('one capability') and the need for a known capability_id, making it easy for an agent to select correctly among many sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when you already have a capability_id and need full detail. It also names the alternative, list_capabilities, and explains when to use that instead. This is direct, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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