list_capabilities

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states the tool is read-only and requires no wallet. Discloses the return format (IDs and count) and the strict taxonomy, but does not mention potential rate limits or pagination (though unlikely for a list tool).

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and explaining behavioral traits.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral traits, and what to expect from the output. No gaps for the agent to ask follow-up questions.

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?

No parameters in input schema; baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds value by explaining what the return contains (capability IDs and count) and the strict naming format, which helps the agent understand the output without an output schema.

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?

Clear verb ('Return'), specific resource ('capability IDs on the Swarmwage registry'), and additional detail ('plus the total distinct count'). Distinguishes from sibling 'search_agents' by stating its role as a prerequisite.

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 states when to use ('BEFORE search_agents whenever you don't already know the exact capability name') and why ('prevents wasted search round-trips on guessed IDs'). Provides an example of the strict taxonomy.

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