get_capabilities

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Describe" implies a read-only, informational call, but the description never confirms there are no side effects, doesn't note whether the returned protocol definition is versioned or environment-dependent, and says nothing about auth or caching. With an output schema present it needn't enumerate return values, but the behavioral profile is largely unstated.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core noun phrase is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing is wasted.

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 and there are no parameters, which lowers the burden, but the description still leaves an agent unsure what class of information "capabilities" covers and how it differs from the adjacent status tools in this large sibling set. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes inputs.

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 gives a verb ("Describe") and an object ("stable CAD2GIS protocol and accuracy boundaries"), but "stable CAD2GIS protocol" is unexplained jargon and the tool's real role—reporting runtime/protocol capabilities—is only implicit. It does not distinguish itself from nearby capability/status siblings such as get_runtime_status or get_cad_bundle_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when an agent should call this versus get_runtime_status, get_cad_bundle_status, or inspect_runtime. It states content but not the triggering condition or exclusions.

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