mkp_get_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm the absence of side effects, mention authorization needs, or describe any rate limits or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral context unspecified.

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 of 8 words with no wasted content. Every word contributes to stating the purpose. It is an exemplar of concise documentation.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, structure, or content of the capabilities list. For a tool with zero parameters, the agent needs to know what to expect in the response. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. It correctly implies no input is needed, but does not add value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of MKP system capabilities and features. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'list of MKP system capabilities and features'. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on analysis, cognition enhancement, system status, and conversation triggering, none of which mention capabilities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mkp_get_system_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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