omnia_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating the tool does not load or probe models, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side-effect expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by stating the tool's purpose and its key non-behavior.

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 parameterless introspection tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it reports and what it does not do. No critical context is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter semantics are needed beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('configured capabilities'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the evaluation-focused siblings by clarifying it does not load or probe models.

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 gives clear context: this tool reports configured capabilities, not model behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the negative clarification ('does not load or probe models') helps an agent select it for capability introspection rather than evaluation.

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