re_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the operation class (health check) and the returned content (available backends plus versions), implying a read-only, side-effect-free probe. It says nothing about permissions, latency, or failure behavior, but for a zero-argument probe the core behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first names the operation and output, the second states when to invoke it. Every clause earns its place.

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, so the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters there is no input semantics to cover. Purpose plus invocation timing is all an agent needs, and both are present.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond that.

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 purpose: a health check that reports which reverse-engineering backends are available and their versions, and it enumerates those backends (Ghidra/r2/capa/floss/angr/jadx/apktool/bwrap). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling sandbox_selftest, which is also a self-diagnostic tool.

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?

"Immer zuerst aufrufen, wenn unklar ist, was geht" gives an explicit trigger condition (call first, when the available tooling is unclear). It provides clear usage context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls just short of the top band.

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