native_ui_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only weakly signals safety through "Inspect." It does not confirm the call is side-effect free, whether "opt-in" implies a flag must be enabled elsewhere first, or whether the limits reported are static or environment-dependent.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource plus the three limit dimensions are front-loaded. Slightly dense jargon keeps it from being maximally readable.

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 output schema covers return values and there are no parameters, so the remaining gaps are conceptual: what constitutes a "native workflow route," what "opt-in" requires, and how the result should drive a subsequent native_* call are all unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the results are scoped by the host's current platform/locale/scene rather than by caller input.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Inspect") on a specific resource ("native workflow routes") and names the dimensions it reports (platform/locale/scene limits). However, "opt-in native workflow routes" is internal jargon and the description never distinguishes it from nearby siblings like native_scene_read or orca_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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on whether it must be called before other native_* tools. The word "Inspect" only implies a read-only discovery call.

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