dreamlayer_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool 'calls no provider and spends nothing,' which is a key behavioral trait for an introspection tool. It does not cover authentication or return format, but for a zero-parameter read-only operation, this level of transparency is adequate.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral guarantee (no provider call, no cost) is given immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse: efficiently structured with every word earning its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it inspects and that it has no side effects. It could optionally mention what the returned contract contains (e.g., a list of operations), but this is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to explain about parameters. According to the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; no additional semantic detail is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and a concrete resource, 'DreamLayer Agent API contract and the operations this key may run,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that perform actions like upload, generate, execute, or cancel. The agent can immediately understand this is an introspective, read-only tool.

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?

The description implies this tool is a safe preflight check by stating 'Calls no provider and spends nothing,' but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of specific scenarios (e.g., 'use before other calls to discover allowed operations') or any exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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