list_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description clearly conveys this is a read-only operation that requires no wallet. It reveals the tool returns capability IDs and a count, and gives an example of the strict naming convention. While it doesn't specify the exact output format, the behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 four sentences, each essential. It starts with the main purpose, then immediately gives usage guidance, an example, and a note on safety. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description provides complete context: what it returns, when to use it versus alternatives, an example of the strict taxonomy, and that it's a safe read operation. This is fully sufficient for an AI agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description has no parameters to document. Following the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, the description adds value by explaining the context and usage without needing to describe parameters.

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 returns all capability IDs and the total distinct count from the Swarmwage registry. It uses specific verb 'return' and resource 'capability IDs', and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'search_agents' by advising to use this first when capability name is unknown.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE `search_agents`' and explains why: the taxonomy is strict and guessing leads to wasted round-trips. Also states 'Read-only, no wallet required', providing clear context for when to invoke.

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