get_claude_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool uses bounded probes, avoids interactive sessions, reports advertised and experimental request paths, and notes a limitation: terminal capture cannot authenticate effective runtime posture. This is substantial disclosure, though it does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free or what happens in error cases.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and constraints, and the second sentence adds output details and a limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how it does it, what it reports, and a key limitation. It could mention behavior when the CLI is not installed or timeout/error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Following baseline guidance for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds value by explaining what the tool inspects and reports, which compensates for any lack of parameter-level detail.

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 inspects the installed Claude CLI using bounded version/help probes without starting an interactive session. It specifies the verb 'inspect', the resource 'Claude CLI', and how it inspects, which distinguishes it from sibling session-management and remote-control tools.

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 use case is implied: to inspect CLI capabilities before or independently of interactive sessions. However, the description does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference any sibling tools as alternatives. The phrase 'without starting an interactive session' hints at a constraint but does not offer exclusionary guidance.

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