capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior: 'Without arguments returns a summary; with `query` returns matching entries' and enumerates status values. It also adds context that the map is verified and every entry names a proving port. No contradictions with annotations (since none exist).

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 core purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct function: what it does, when to use it, and how the arguments affect the response. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the two primary return modes (summary vs matching entries) and the status filter. It could provide more detail on entry structure, but for a capability discovery tool this is adequate and the sibling context reinforces its role.

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%, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it explains the effect of omitting vs providing `query` and enumerates the `status` options. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter influence.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query what abap2UI5 can express.' The reference to a 'verified capability map (CAPABILITIES.md)' distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'validate_view' or 'build_backend', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE deciding a UI5 feature cannot be built.' This is a clear directive. It doesn't name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know this is the first stop for capability checks.

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