capabilities-tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior precisely: what output to expect for each invocation style. While it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or side-effect-free, the verb 'Navigate' and the nature of returning maps/schemas clearly imply a safe, non-destructive operation, and the behavior is fully described.

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 sentence, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a compact notation to convey three modes. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior for this simple tool with two optional parameters. It explains the three call patterns and what each returns. Minor gaps: it doesn't specify what happens if both domain and name are provided, nor the exact structure of the domain map or schema, but those are not critical for basic usage.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains both parameters: domain is a 'Craft domain from the no-args map' and name is an 'Exact tool name for a full input schema', even providing examples. This is helpful and goes beyond the schema titles, though the schema titles already give some context.

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 'Navigate THIS server's tools' and specifies three distinct modes (no args, {domain}, {name}), precisely defining the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like capabilities-search and capabilities-describe by focusing on browsing/hierarchy rather than searching or specific descriptions.

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 explicit usage patterns: 'no args -> domain map; {domain} -> its tools; {name} -> one schema'. This guides when to call with different parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use capabilities-search instead), so it loses a point for lacking exclusions or alternative references.

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