cookieguard_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it promises exit-code and result semantics in the response and explicitly confirms no network requests, which reinforces and explains the openWorldHint=false annotation rather than merely restating it.

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 front-loaded sentence with a tight enumerated list of covered topics; every item maps to something an agent would want to know. The list is long but not padded with filler or restated name/title material.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values, and it still signals the shape of the response (checks, policy, exit codes, limitations). For a zero-parameter introspection tool this is close to complete; only the explicit routing guidance relative to siblings is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states it takes no arguments, matching the empty schema with additionalProperties false, and leaves nothing ambiguous about invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Describe') applied to a clearly bounded resource (CookieGuard itself), then enumerates the exact topics covered: checks, fixed origins/policy, result and exit-code semantics, integrations, privacy, limitations. This separates it from cookieguard_scan or cookieguard_audit, which act on targets rather than documenting the server, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Takes no arguments and makes no network requests' implies this is a safe first call for orientation, but the description never states when to prefer it over cookieguard_explain or cookieguard_policy, nor that it should be called before a scan. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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