daykeeper_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a hint about 'execution gates' that may block work, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it is vague and never explains what a gate is or what the inspection returns.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The second sentence is short but obscure — 'A management-only flow is not an executing workflow' reads as a cryptic aside that is not clearly actionable, so it does not fully earn 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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not explain returns or inputs. Still, the notion of 'capabilities' and 'execution gates' is left undefined, so an agent knows when to call it but not really what it will receive or how to act on it.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect API capabilities and execution gates.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tenant/flow/operation getters, which retrieve concrete records rather than capability metadata. The second sentence ('A management-only flow is not an executing workflow') is cryptic and doesn't sharpen the purpose.

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?

'Before planning work' gives a timing cue for when to call it, which is useful. However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions, so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings like daykeeper_flows_list on its own.

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