CapacitiesMCP

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects like whether content is appended or overwrites existing content, the default timestamp behavior, or whether permissions are required. The noTimestamp parameter hints at timestamp prepending but the description does not confirm this behavior.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or what happens if the daily note is missing. The implications of spaceId and noTimestamp are left entirely to the schema, leaving the agent without sufficient context to handle edge cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already describes content, spaceId, and noTimestamp. The description's mention of 'markdown content' is redundant with the content parameter description.

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 the action: 'Add markdown content to today's daily note in Capacities.' It identifies the specific resource (daily note) and distinguishes it from siblings like create_object and save_weblink, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, or when it should be avoided. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a daily note must already exist, and does not mention any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key prerequisite: 'Requires the Capacities desktop app to be running.' It also clarifies that any custom object type defined in the space can be created. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, or side effects beyond the obvious 'create' action.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds a critical prerequisite, and finally gives concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema provides rich parameter documentation, and the description adds the crucial desktop app prerequisite and type scope. There is no output schema, but for a straightforward create operation, the context is largely sufficient. It could improve by noting what the tool returns or how invalid types are handled, but it is mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Books, People, Meetings, or any custom object type' reinforces the 'type' parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new object of any type in Capacities.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like capacities_add_to_daily_note and capacities_save_weblink by emphasizing it creates standalone objects of any custom type.

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 context: 'Requires the Capacities desktop app to be running' and lists possible object types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_weblink or add_to_daily_note), nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key dependency (desktop app running), the scope (currently open object), and the specific return fields (URL, title, name). It does not mention error cases like no object being open, but for a read-only info tool this is reasonable.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is low complexity with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what it returns and the key external prerequisite (desktop app running), which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The schema already confirms no parameters, so this is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get information') and identifies the resource ('currently open object in Capacities desktop app'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like capacities_get_space_info and capacities_get_object_types by focusing on the current object in the desktop app context.

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 the tool is for the currently open object in the desktop app and explicitly says 'Requires desktop app to be running,' which is a clear usage prerequisite. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for this simple getter.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states the get operation, without disclosing side-effect-free behavior, error handling, or return format. 'Get' implies read-only but adds no explicit behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences convey both the tool's action and its usefulness. No filler or redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the core function and purpose. However, with no output schema, it omits details about the response structure or possible errors, leaving minor gaps.

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 sole parameter spaceId is fully described in the schema ('The UUID of the space') with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'for a space' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific function: 'Get all available object types (structures) for a space,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or create. The added context 'Useful for knowing what types of objects can be created' reinforces its purpose.

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?

It identifies the use case ('Useful for knowing what types of objects can be created') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This provides clear context without exclusion criteria, meriting a 4.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of the returned information, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention permission requirements, or discuss potential errors. The name 'get' implies safety, but explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the purpose and key contents without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the returned info includes (object types, collections, property definitions). For a simple one-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete. However, it could mention error behavior or required permissions for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (spaceId), and the schema already documents it as 'The UUID of the space to get info for'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information about a Capacities space') along with its contents (object types, collections, property definitions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spaces and get_object_types, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed info about a specific space. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states this is a read-only 'List' operation and discloses the return contents (space IDs, titles, icons). This is sufficient for a simple query tool, though it omits details like ordering or pagination, which are likely irrelevant for a list of spaces.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List'), and every word contributes meaning. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, scope, and return fields. It provides all essential context an agent needs to use it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('all Capacities spaces the user has access to'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like capacities_get_space_info, which likely targets a single space, and capacities_search, which searches content.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an overview of all spaces is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings for listing all spaces.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'open' without explaining what happens to the user (e.g., launches the app, returns no data) or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the lack of annotations means the description should clarify behavioral expectations, such as whether it returns data or just triggers an action. It doesn't, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's side effects.

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 input schema already fully describes the url parameter with an example (capacities://...), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond 'specific object'. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (open), the resource (a specific object in Capacities), and the mechanism (URL/deeplink). This distinguishes it from siblings like capacities_search or capacities_create_object, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for opening an existing object when you have its URL/deeplink, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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 discloses the action ('save') but does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicates. The lack of behavioral context for a write operation is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and optional capabilities. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the basic action but lacks return value details, prerequisite context, or guidance on when to use it relative to siblings. The description leaves the agent under-informed for tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a high-level summary ('optional metadata, tags, and notes') that maps to the schema but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Save a URL/weblink') and the destination ('to Capacities'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capacities_create_object or capacities_add_to_daily_note by focusing on weblinks.

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 implies usage for saving weblinks with optional metadata, tags, and notes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like capacities_create_object. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so guidance is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields (IDs, structure types, titles) but does not mention permissions, no-match behavior, search semantics (e.g., partial vs exact match), or potential side effects. This is acceptable for a simple read-only search but leaves gaps.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence plus a return clause, front-loaded with the main action ('Search for objects by title'). It contains no redundant or filler wording.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the purpose and the return values, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. It could mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for the complexity level it is fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (spaceId, searchTerm) are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond reinforcing that search is by title, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches for objects by title within a Capacities space and specifies the returned fields (IDs, structure types, titles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing spaces, creating objects, or getting current object.

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 implies usage when searching objects by title, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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