origin_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that setting 'show' changes Origin visibility, implying a side effect beyond reporting. However, it omits details about read-only nature, output format, or other potential impacts, leaving significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose and a key behavioral note.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are covered. The description covers the core purpose and one parameter effect, but lacks context about typical usage, relationship to siblings, and what 'runtime capabilities' entails. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'show' by explaining its effect on Origin visibility, but provides no extra context for 'refresh'. Overall, the addition is marginal but positive.

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 the tool reports runtime capabilities, with a specific verb ('report') and resource ('runtime capabilities'). It also notes a secondary effect of the 'show' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the unique purpose is implied by the name and context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over sibling tools like 'origin_ping' or 'origin_query_knowledge'.

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