getToolCapabilities

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the specific content returned (CLI tools, extension connection state, functional vs stub features). This disclosure helps the agent understand what to expect beyond the annotation's safety hint.

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, well-structured sentence of 15 words. It front-loads the key purpose ('Available CLI tools, ext connection state, and which features are functional vs stub-only') with no extraneous information.

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 lack of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return value. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: a listing of CLI tools, connection state, and feature statuses.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description provides relevant context about the output without needing to explain param behavior.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'Available CLI tools, ext connection state, and which features are functional vs stub-only.' This clearly identifies the specific verb (get) and resource (tool capabilities), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual features or specific data.

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 it's for assessing overall capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like searchTools or other get* tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are provided.

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