Get service file capabilities

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world lookup. The description adds substantial unannotated behavior: permission-grant nuances, hosted-connector scope, platform-specific availability reasons, the 2FA lock response (423), and the instruction not to bypass unavailability. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, then ordered into usage, permissions, availability, and error behavior. Every sentence provides actionable context, though the 2FA statement and the later 423 note are somewhat redundant and could be merged. Slightly long, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity.

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 capability-check tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description still explains return contents, auth requirements, platform-specific availability states, and failure responses. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret common failures.

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 single parameter orderNo is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description does not add any syntax, format, or alternative meaning for orderNo. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all parameter work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check file-manager capabilities for a server. It enumerates the exact outputs (availability, platform, unavailable reason, features, limits, transfer mode) and distinguishes itself from sibling file tools by being the pre-flight check. This is far more specific than a generic capability lookup.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it before other file tools,' giving clear ordering guidance. It also provides prerequisites (files:read, read/full access, vm:files:read for hosted connector) and failure handling ('relay any unavailable reason verbatim and never work around it'). This tells the agent when to use it and how to treat failures.

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