Read YouAndEye capabilities

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It does so by noting that the tool describes connection state and limits, which is behaviorally relevant to an agent deciding whether local state might be stale or constrained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item adds meaningful detail about what the tool returns, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read-only introspection tool. The annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return structure, and the description enumerates the main content areas. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain argument semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and no information is missing on this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') with a clear resource ('YouAndEye capabilities') and enumerates the exact content categories: affects, sequences, channels, limits, and local connection state. This sets it apart from sibling tools like express, face_status, and neutral, which are action/status-oriented.

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 this tool is used to discover what the system supports and its connection state, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only capability query, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives.

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