get_automation_capabilities

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it promises an exact enumeration of both supported and unsupported surfaces, including per-note expression. It does not describe return format, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: 'exact', 'supported and unsupported', 'automation', and 'per-note expression surfaces' all carry distinct meaning.

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-parameter, read-only capability report, the description adequately states what is being reported and with what precision. It could add return-shape details, especially since there is no output schema, but there are no arguments to configure and the core semantics are present.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's scope phrase ('automation and per-note expression surfaces') conveys what the no-argument call reports, which is sufficient.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Report') and a specific resource: automation and per-note expression surfaces, with 'exact supported and unsupported' clarifying the output scope. This distinguishes it from related state/inspection tools like get_live_state or get_factory_coverage, even though no sibling is named.

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 purpose sentence implies this should be used when an agent needs a complete supported/unsupported capability matrix before automating or applying expression. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, which is a notable gap given the large sibling tool list.

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