supportpages_get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly given. The description adds genuinely new context that no annotation carries: no job is enqueued and no browser consent prompt is triggered, which directly answers an agent's side-effect concern.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core check and followed by the most decision-relevant caveat. No filler, though the description is terse enough that it foregoes useful detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover read-only safety. However, for a tool with 15 action enum values and two undocumented optional scoping params (workspace, article_id), the description does not explain how those parameters affect the capability result.

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% across all three parameters, so the schema itself explains nothing. The description never mentions the 'action' enum, 'workspace', or 'article_id' — it only says 'an action' generically, leaving the agent to infer semantics entirely from the enum list.

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 and resource: 'Check whether an action can run and return its execution location or next setup step.' An agent can grasp this is a preflight/capability probe rather than the action itself. It does not, however, differentiate itself from setup-oriented siblings like supportpages_doctor or supportpages_init, which could confuse routing.

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?

Usage is implied ('check whether an action can run' before running it) and the sentence 'No job or browser consent is started' hints this is a safe dry-run. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative among the ~40 siblings.

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