list_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the crucial behavioral trait: the output describes supported features, not callable tools. This prevents a common misuse. It adds nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the scope limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler is present.

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, read-only introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns in scope terms (feature/chart support) and warns against the main misinterpretation. Nothing essential is missing, though naming describe_capability as the complement would have made it airtight.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about arguments, and it does not waste space pretending otherwise.

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 and resource ("List cwtwb's declared capability boundary") and clarifies the resource is supported workbook features/charts. It explicitly distances itself from enumerating MCP tools, which is useful given how many list_* siblings exist. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-related describe_capability sibling.

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?

Gives explicit negative guidance: it should not be used to infer whether a tool like add_dashboard or save_workbook exists. That exclusion is concrete and actionable. It stops short of stating the positive when-to-use case or naming an alternative such as describe_capability, so it is clear context without full routing.

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