capsule_demo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context that it runs in real Docker capsules and is not a model evaluation, though it says nothing about side effects, runtime cost, or what the demo produces. Note a mild tension: it calls the demo 'deterministic' while annotations set idempotentHint=false, though determinism of output and idempotency of side effects are not strictly the same claim.

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 compact sentence with the capability front-loaded and the important caveat second; nothing is wasted. It is not padded, though it is also not richly 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 parameterless tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the essentials of what it is and what it is not. It omits what the demo actually exercises or returns, which an agent might reasonably want before invoking it, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 schema to describe and no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. Baseline 4 applies.

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 it runs a demo inside real Docker capsules and clarifies it is not a real model test, which gives a rough sense of the action. However, 'demo' is vague about what is actually demonstrated, and no sibling (capsule_run, capsule_doctor) is named to distinguish it, so an agent must guess how it differs from the others.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus capsule_run or capsule_doctor. The caveat 'does not test a real model' weakly implies a when-not condition, but no alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., Docker availability) are stated.

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