Describe capability

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

The description mentions returning safety hints but does not explicitly state that this operation itself is read-only. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so no contradiction exists; the description adds some context but not substantial side-effect detail.

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?

One clear, direct sentence with no wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return content: full input schema, required scopes, and safety hints. It could mention error cases or output format details, but for a simple describe operation it is reasonably complete.

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 only parameter 'name' is described as identifying 'a single capability by name,' which gives it meaning beyond the bare string schema. It does not specify format or uniqueness, but for a single simple parameter it is adequately explained.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Return' and a specific resource: the full input schema, required scopes, and safety hints for a single capability by name. This distinguishes it from siblings like call_capability and find_capability.

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?

Implies use when you need metadata for a named capability, but does not explicitly contrast with call_capability or find_capability or state when one would choose this over them. The purpose is clear, but usage guidance is minimal.

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