capability_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose some useful behavior – unowned capabilities appear with agent_count 0, and agents are filtered to the caller's 'comm reach' – but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, or what 'Normalised as capability routing matches' implies for the results.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the remainder is a colon-glued run-on with parentheticals and a dangling fragment ('Normalised as capability routing matches.') that obscures meaning rather than saving space. It is dense without being clear.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, the description only needs to frame the tool, which it does: it names the catalog, the owner merge, and the agent_count-0 edge case. The unexplained 'comm reach' and 'routing matches' phrasing are the only real gaps for such a low-complexity tool.

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 schema declares zero parameters at 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless list tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the capability catalog') and clarifies that it merges owner/agent information, so the agent can tell what data comes back. However, the purpose is diluted by undefined terms like 'comm reach' and 'capability routing matches', and it does not differentiate itself from adjacent listing tools such as agent_list or tag_list.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_list, agent_get, or tag_list, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred purely from the word 'List'.

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