Get ability details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, covering the tool's own safety profile. The description adds value by revealing that the returned information includes input/output schemas and destructiveness status of the ability itself, which goes beyond annotations and directly informs the caller what to expect. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, what is returned, a usage rationale, and a concrete naming example. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and safe annotations, the description provides all necessary details: what it returns, how to format the name, and the context for using it. Since the output schema is absent, the description's mention of schemas and destructiveness fills that gap. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well documented in the input schema. The description complements this by clarifying the namespaced format with an example ('my-plugin/get-site-info'), which reinforces the schema's instruction to use the fully qualified name from discover_abilities. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Get the full definition of one ability." It specifies what is included (input/output schemas, destructiveness) and even gives an example of a namespaced ability name. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like discover_abilities or run_ability, so it lacks sibling differentiation. This is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 the tool with "so you can call it correctly the first time," indicating it should be used before executing an ability. It also warns that ability names are namespaced, which helps prepare the caller. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as discover_abilities for listing, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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