get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses the potential 30–60s latency, but fails to mention whether the probes are read-only, what side effects may occur, or what the output looks like. The term 'probes' implies checking, but it is not explicit enough for an agent to assess safety.

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 extremely short, with only two phrases. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a useful latency note, but the first phrase is a fragment and the brevity comes at the expense of crucial parameter and usage 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool does, how to call it, and what to expect. It only provides a vague purpose and a latency estimate, leaving major gaps in understanding.

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% for the 3 parameters (host, port, skipInteraction), and the description does not mention them at all. An agent gets no help understanding what these parameters control, making the tool very difficult to invoke correctly.

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 the tool performs 'live capability probes' and specifies the domains (CDP, profilers, UI), which gives a clear sense of what it does. However, it does not strongly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_target_info or get_ui_tree, which also probe capabilities in a sense.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only added information is the potential 30–60s duration, which hints at a long-running operation but does not explain typical use cases or prerequisites.

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