system_capabilities

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden; "Report" implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but this is never stated explicitly. For a zero-argument informational tool with an output schema, there is little behavioral surface to cover, so a minimal-but-adequate 3 is fair.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the subject of the report is stated immediately after the verb. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema that documents the returned capability fields, the description does not need to enumerate return values. It is complete enough to call correctly, only missing the when-to-use framing and an explicit read-only statement.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no inputs are required and names the categories the report covers (broker, native, OpenFOAM), consistent with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ("Report") and a concrete resource (installed broker plus native/OpenFOAM capabilities), so the agent knows it is an introspection tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent status/reporting siblings such as session_status or openfoam_inspect, leaving some ambiguity about which reporting tool to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: the description never says when a capability check is warranted or how it relates to openfoam_probe/openfoam_inspect. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the name alone.

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