Read Capacities object

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context about format semantics – structured JSON is safe for edit pipelines, while markdown is a compact read-only view. This goes beyond the annotation hints by clarifying how the output should be consumed in an editing workflow.

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 sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and the format guidance in the second. No filler or redundant elaboration – 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?

For a read-by-UUID tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, the format decision, and edit-safety implications. It doesn't discuss error handling or pagination, but those are less critical given the output schema and the simple single-object retrieval scope. The sibling context suggests search_objects is the alternative for querying, which is implicitly clear.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% – all three parameters (id, format, apiToken) have detailed descriptions covering UUID format, enum values, defaults, and security constraints. The description's mention of structured vs markdown partially echoes the schema's format description but adds no new parameter-level information, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Read one Capacities object by UUID' – a specific verb, resource, and lookup method. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_objects (search), update_object (mutate), and delete_object (delete), establishing this as the canonical read-by-ID operation.

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 provides clear context on when to use each format: structured for follow-up edits, markdown for read-only proposal/context views. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_objects for finding objects by criteria, but the UUID-based read scope is evident, so the tool's place is clear enough.

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