check_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds 'probe' and 'permission-sensitive features,' which aligns with the read-only nature but does not disclose additional behavioral details like exact checks performed or permission requirements, providing minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, strong safety-related annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what specific capabilities or permission-sensitive features will be probed, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact coverage. This represents a clear but tolerable gap.

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 schema contains a single parameter (database_name) with a complete description and default value, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add meaning to the parameter, but since the schema already documents it fully, 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('Azure SQL capabilities and permission-sensitive features') tied to a database. This distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools, which focus on performance, indexes, or schemas.

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 you need to inspect database capabilities or permission-sensitive features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since context is clear but no alternatives are mentioned, it falls at the baseline for implied guidance.

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