cmw_get_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the behavioral consequence of missing licenses and the resulting error message, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention the caching behavior (which is implied by the 'refresh' parameter) or the return format, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. The extra context about CMW500 licensing and the error message earns its place by reinforcing usage guidance. It is concise without being terse, though the chassis metaphor could be shortened without losing value.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, but because there is no output schema, it should describe what the returned report looks like (e.g., a list of family names). It also omits mention of caching, which is relevant for understanding freshness. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'refresh' is described). The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'host' and 'port' parameters, nor does it add any meaning beyond the schema. For an agent to correctly use these parameters, it would need additional context or rely on convention.

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's function: 'Report which technology families this instrument can actually be asked to use, based on its installed options.' The verb 'Report' and resource 'technology families' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmw_query_options by focusing on capability families rather than raw options.

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 explicit usage timing: 'Call this before planning a campaign' and explains the consequence of not doing so (the '-113 Undefined header' error). It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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