orca_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read/probe operation but never states whether results are cached, whether detection is expensive, or what happens when refresh is used, which is precisely the behavioral trait an agent needs here.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the detected items. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given what it leaves unexplained.

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 exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a capability-detection tool with an undocumented refresh flag and no differentiation from overlapping sibling tools, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'refresh' parameter, and the description never mentions it. The presence of a refresh flag strongly implies caching semantics, but neither field explains what refreshing does or when to set it.

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 ('Detect') and enumerates the resources: installed CLI flags, version/help text, and desktop availability. This goes beyond restating the name, but it does not distinguish the tool from closely related siblings like feature_coverage, native_ui_capabilities, or printer_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 indication of when this tool should be used versus the many capability/status siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the word 'Detect'.

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