ise_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a summary of the four API surfaces, their precedence, and the cached catalog version. It does not describe return format or what errors might occur, but for an informational read-only capability tool, this is reasonably complete. The precedence resolution rule is behaviorally useful context not available elsewhere.

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 that packs in the four surfaces, their precedence order, the fallback logic, and an explicit when-to-call instruction. It is front-loaded and dense without padding. Slightly long as one sentence but earns its length with substantive content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, informational tool, the description covers the essential points: what it summarizes, the precedence order, fallback semantics, and when to call it. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, this is complete for its intended purpose. It could theoretically mention what the cached catalog version is used for, but the sibling ise_catalog_info/ise_catalog_diff tools presumably handle those details.

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 fully reflects this (100% coverage with no fields). Per guidance, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description's value lies entirely in explaining what the no-arg call returns, which it does well: the four surfaces, precedence, and cached catalog version.

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 it summarizes the four Cisco ISE API surfaces, their precedence order, and the cached catalog version. It specifies a concrete verb+resource (summarize ISE API surfaces + catalogs) and its scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ise_ers_get or ise_openapi_* which perform specific operations on individual surfaces. The description makes clear it's a meta/capabilities tool, distinct from substantive operations.

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 'Call this first when unsure which tool family to use,' providing direct guidance on when to invoke it. It also encodes the fallback logic (use the highest precedence surface, fall back on failure), which is a concrete usage rule for the agent. This is an explicit when-to-use instruction that effectively differentiates this from the operation-specific sibling tools.

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