supported_services

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. The wording 'which services autocalc can build a saved list for' implies a side-effect-free lookup, but read-only status is never stated explicitly, nor is any auth or cost context. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource identity ('The capability matrix') before the content detail. It is efficient, though leaning terse for a tool whose siblings occupy overlapping semantic space.

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 zero-argument read tool with an output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the semantic content of the matrix (services and their modes). The only real gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the many adjacent sibling tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 names a specific resource ('capability matrix') and states what it contains: which services autocalc can build a saved list for, plus their modes. This separates it reasonably well from list_services (plain enumeration) and compare_modes (mode comparison), though neither sibling is named and the 'capability matrix' framing is jargon the agent must decode.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_services, describe_service, or compare_modes, all of which sit in adjacent territory. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is a pre-flight check before building a saved list. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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