List capabilities

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the default limit returns the entire list in one call, and the absence of a phase filter is explained as intentional rather than an oversight.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then filters, then the intentional-omission note. The phase sentence earns its place by preventing a false expectation of a phase parameter, though the block is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the fields returned. Combined with the filter semantics and the full-list default, an agent has nearly everything needed to call this correctly; only cursor pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 only 50% — limit and cursor have no descriptions — but the description partially compensates by clarifying that the default limit returns the full list, implying pagination is usually unnecessary. The domain and persona examples largely duplicate schema descriptions, so overall value above the schema is moderate.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (capabilities), gives the exact count (22), and enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, domain, summary). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_capability.

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?

Explains that domain and persona filters are optional, gives concrete slug examples, and preempts an obvious wrong assumption by stating there is deliberately no phase filter. It lacks explicit routing to siblings such as search_framework or get_capability, but the usage context is clear.

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