sc_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it retrieves version, supported commands, exit codes, and local trade controls, which are behavioral details. However, it does not mention aspects like whether it requires authentication, any side effects, or data freshness. A bit more context on behavior would be beneficial.

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, just one sentence that front-loads the purpose and succinctly lists the contents. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a simple informational retrieval tool, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool returns and is sufficient for an agent to understand its use. A little more detail on the format or when to use it would push to a 5, but it's adequate.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information needed. With no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not add extra parameter semantics because none are required.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the exact resource 'Scalable Capital CLI capability dump'. It lists the contents: version, supported commands, exit codes, and local trade controls, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like watchlist, holdings, or transactions.

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 implies usage context by stating it gets the CLI capability dump, which is informational for understanding tool capabilities. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or scenarios where it should be avoided.

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