vibe_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, reads no private data, and installs nothing, which is strong transparency for a tool of this nature. It also reveals that the manifest includes an 'honest reason' for each status, setting accurate expectations about the output.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in essential safety and content details without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's behavior.

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, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the capabilities covered, the possible statuses, and the safety guarantees. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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, so the baseline is 4 even without additional parameter information. The description still adds useful semantic context by explaining what the manifest contains and the meaning of the status values, though it does not need to explain any parameter details since there are none.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('local capability manifest'), then enumerates exactly which capabilities are covered (remember, reflect, message, call) and the possible status values. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, which are about starting, initializing, messaging, and status rather than reporting 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 clearly implies this tool is for inspecting runtime capabilities before choosing operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. An agent can infer the usage context, but there is no direct guidance about when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate.

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