Get Toolkit Capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what information is returned (versions, profile, tool schema digest, local capability status), implying a read-only getter operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any potential cost, caching, or failure modes. The listing of returns is helpful but minimal.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and specifies the exact contents. There is zero wasted text, and it covers all essential information in a compact format.

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?

While the tool is simple (no params, no output schema), the description does not provide guidance on when an agent would need this information. It lists what is returned but does not explain the purpose or value of these fields. For an introspection tool, more context about its typical use (e.g., 'Call this before using other tools to confirm available capabilities') would be beneficial.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to document parameters since there are none, and adding parameter detail would be redundant.

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's purpose: it returns versions, profile, tool schema digest, and local capability status. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the list of returned items distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are focused on domain-specific operations like molecule conversion or rendering.

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 versus others. As a capabilities/introspection tool, it would likely be called before other operations to check versions or support, but this is not stated. There are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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