list_capabilities

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

The description states 'Discovery only', indicating read-only behavior with no side effects. However, with no annotations, it does not provide further behavioral details such as rate limits or resource impact. The simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for a simple discovery tool. It covers what the tool lists and the intended use case.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline score is 4 per the rule for zero parameters. No additional value is needed beyond schema coverage.

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 lists discoverable server capabilities and enumerates specific types (attack strategies, scorers, datasets, report formats). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_attack_strategies or list_reports, which list subsets of capabilities.

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 notes 'Discovery only' and that the agent is responsible for deciding which capability to use, implying this tool is for exploration, not for executing capabilities. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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