capabilities-describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It states the return is a 'typed parameter schema' which informs the agent about the nature of the response. It does not mention any side effects or require special permissions, but for a schema retrieval tool, this is reasonable. It adds value by indicating the output is a schema, not actual data.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. This is a model of efficiency.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It lacks details on how the schema is structured (e.g., whether it includes types, enums, defaults) which could be useful, but for a straightforward schema lookup, it covers the essentials. The missing output schema means the description should hint at the response format, which it does by mentioning 'schema'.

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 0%, so the description must define the single parameter 'id'. It explains that 'id' is an operator id with an example ('mesh.bevel'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify the format or where to find valid ids, which is a minor gap given only one parameter.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving the full typed parameter schema for an operation. It specifies the resource (operation schema) and the verb (get), and provides a clear distinction from siblings like capabilities-search and capabilities-invoke, though not explicitly naming them.

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: before calling an operation, consult its schema. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing all operations) or mention alternatives like capabilities-search for discovery, but the context of 'before calling it' is clear.

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