adl_capabilities

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add value by naming the information classes returned (adapters, safety modes, limits), but with no output schema it omits anything about the shape or format of that response.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three categories of information, with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 no-param read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what the response looks like (a list of adapter names, a capability matrix, limit values) or how to use it. One short clause on the return shape or on calling this before invoking other adl_* actions would complete 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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly mentions no argument requirements, consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and names the specific resources exposed: adapters, safety modes, and resource limits. It is clearly distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings (open, observe, capture), which all perform operations rather than report capability, though the description never says so explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/introspection call to make before invoking the act/resource siblings, but the description never states when to call it or that it should precede other adl_* calls. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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