sx_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly reveals a non-destructive, read-only nature by framing the output as listings (actions, whitelist, write actions). It does not contradict any annotations (none exist) and provides reasonable context, though it stops short of explicitly stating it has no side effects.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary output ('available actions' first) and packs the three return categories efficiently with zero filler.

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 introspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is returned and its scope. It is reasonably complete, though the absence of an output schema means the return format is unspecified — a minor gap for a capabilities listing.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. The description instead adds value by clarifying what the tool returns, which is the appropriate contribution for a parameterless tool.

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 states a clear purpose: list available actions, the read-only operation whitelist, and current approved write actions. It names the specific resource (capabilities/introspection) and is distinct from siblings like sx_get_user_permission or sx_health, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to call it versus alternatives such as sx_get_user_permission or sx_list_forms. An agent can infer it is an introspection/discovery tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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