List Capacities objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main behavioral value is its mention of pagination and returning summaries. No contradiction observed. The description adds the 'one cursor-paginated page' nuance which is not in annotations, earning credit above baseline.

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 one efficient sentence with front-loaded action and differentiation. Every word adds value, no redundancy or filler. Perfectly sized for quick scanning.

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 tool with good annotations and a rich schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, alternatives, and pagination. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Minor gaps: doesn't mention that results are summaries or what fields the summary includes, but given openWorldHint, this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that filter must have exactly one membership target and listing the three types (structure, tag, collection), which is already in the schema but re-iterated helpfully. The cursor and pageSize semantics are well-documented in schema; description doesn't add much beyond but is adequate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'one cursor-paginated page of Capacities object summaries', specifying the filtering dimensions (structure, tag, or collection). It provides clear differentiation from sibling tools like search_objects and get_object.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use search_objects for title matching and get_object for full object content.' It also implies paging via cursor, providing clear context with no misleading guidance.

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