search_capabilities

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds a scoping claim: results contain operation names and only the argument hints needed next. This is useful but vague, and it does not disclose output shape, refresh behavior, or query semantics.

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 definition is one short sentence and front-loads the main action, but it is under-specified rather than economically complete; important behavioral and parameter information is missing.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description must carry more weight. It gives the broad purpose but omits the query semantics, return shape, and how the result connects to call_operation, so the tool is not sufficiently contextualized.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters (limit, query, refresh, category, include_schema), yet the description names none of them and only references 'argument hints' as output. This is a serious gap: an agent cannot know what query string, limit, or include_schema controls.

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 states a specific action ('Find operation names') and the scope of results ('argument hints needed next'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that call/get/batch operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'inspect_unity' or clarify what 'capabilities' means in context, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'needed next' implies this is a discovery step before invoking an operation, giving some context. But it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over call_operation, get_result, inspect_unity, or batch_operations, and no exclusions.

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