lightbulb_find_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the response is a 'compact ranked catalog' and the tool exists to avoid loading every tool schema. No behavioral claims contradict the annotations.

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 four short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives input guidance, output expectations, and the recommended next step. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 lightweight discovery tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the query input, the compact ranked catalog output, and the follow-up tool to call. The only minor gap is the unmapped 'limit' parameter, but this is low-risk given its default value and self-descriptive name.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does clarify that 'query' should contain a business task, connector combination, or workflow operation. However, it provides no explanation of the 'limit' parameter, though the default value of 10 and the parameter name make its meaning reasonably inferable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find task-relevant Lightbulb capabilities.' It also positions the tool as a discovery mechanism that avoids loading every tool schema, and distinguishes it from the sibling lightbulb_describe_capability by explicitly chaining to that tool. An agent can understand exactly what this tool produces.

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 usage context: describe the business task, connector combination, or workflow operation needed. It also provides a concrete next step, telling the agent to call lightbulb_describe_capability before using a selected capability. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases, but the workflow guidance is enough for correct selection among siblings.

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