list_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (list) without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves behavioral uncertainty.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which could be beneficial, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place because it omits critical information.

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 two required parameters, no parameter descriptions, and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (despite an output schema existing) nor how to use the tool effectively. Significant gaps remain.

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 0% description coverage for its two parameters (model_id, server_version). The description adds no meaning beyond 'for a model,' failing to explain parameter purposes, formats, or how to obtain valid values. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List the capabilities... for a model,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools (e.g., list_findings) by targeting capabilities. However, it does not define 'model' or 'capabilities,' which may cause 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_capability or other list tools. There are no usage constraints, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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