explain_capability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the core behavior: transforming a capability indicator into a human-readable explanation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens for unknown or malformed capability names, whether the explanation is localized, or where the data comes from. The core contract is visible but edge-case behavior is not.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and the key information (explanation of a capability indicator) comes early. It loses one point because it is written in Hungarian while the schema title and properties are in English, which may reduce usability for agents operating primarily on English-language tool definitions.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description adequately conveys purpose and gives an example value, so return-value detail is not required. But it omits the natural input source (device_capabilities), any error/edge-case behavior, and usage guidance, making it minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only labels `name` as a generic string, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by characterizing the value as a 'kepesseg-jelzo' with a concrete example, but it never tells the agent where valid names come from (e.g., device_capabilities) or how to handle unrecognized values, leaving a real gap at zero schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb+resource: 'emberi nyelvu magyarazata' (human-language explanation) of a capability indicator, and grounds the abstract input with the concrete example 'wired_video_output'. The purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings like device_capabilities (which presumably lists capabilities), though it doesn't explicitly state the contrast.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention that valid capability names likely come from the device_capabilities sibling. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the word 'magyarazata' (explanation), leaving the agent to infer the call context on its own.

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