gretl_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list... from the installed Gretl version' but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it invokes a Gretl script, or what the output format is. Side effects and permission requirements are omitted.

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, very concise, but it sacrifices detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but does not earn its place by providing sufficient context for the 6 parameters and diverse sibling tools.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a moderate schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output, default behavior, or how it relates to siblings like 'gretl_help' or 'gretl_gui_launch'. Important usage 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 50% schema description coverage, some parameters already have descriptions in the schema. However, the tool description itself adds no additional meaning to any parameter—it does not explain how parameters affect the result or context. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 lists Gretl commands, built-in functions, and package management help. It is specific about what is listed, but does not distinguish from sibling tool 'gretl_help' which likely provides targeted help for specific items.

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 the tool is used to retrieve a list of installed capabilities, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. other siblings like 'gretl_help' or 'gretl_version'. No when-not-to or alternatives are mentioned.

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