analyze_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool shows (module system, TS support, platforms, etc.) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only analysis, that it likely fetches external data, or any limitations. The verb 'Analyze' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not stated outright.

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: the first establishes intent and examples, the second lists specific outputs. It is front-loaded, free of redundant phrases, and 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?

For a 2-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of what to expect (the listed capability dimensions) and when to use it. It lacks explicit output structure details, but the list of aspects is sufficient for an agent to select the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention any nuances such as version format or package name constraints.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'package technical capabilities', then gives concrete example questions and an explicit list of output dimensions (module system, TypeScript support, platform compatibility, build tools, engine requirements). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_bundle_size or check_compatibility.

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 provides clear use context via example questions ('does this support ESM/TypeScript?', 'what platforms does this work on?'), establishing when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it misses the full guidance needed for a 5.

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