meiju_get_capabilities

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral caveats: the profile is 'experimental', fields are 'observed' rather than guaranteed, and unknown fields must not be treated as defaults. This is exactly the kind of data-trust context annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the most important caveat is front-loaded. The phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully frames how to interpret them. However, for a read tool with a 1-param surface it still omits the actual purpose and any routing guidance, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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 0% for the single required device_id parameter, and the description says nothing about it (format, source, or constraints). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 name says 'get_capabilities' but the description never says it returns device capabilities; instead it negates them ('not guaranteed hardware capabilities') and uses jargon like 'candidate protocol profile'. An agent cannot easily tell what this returns or how it differs from the sibling meiju_get_status.

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 indication of when to call this versus meiju_get_status, meiju_list_devices or meiju_control. The only guidance is about interpreting results ('unknown fields must not be treated as defaults'), not about tool selection.

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