hcl_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether this is a safe read. The word 'verified' hints that some capabilities may be unverified, but that distinction is never explained.

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 short sentence with the object stated up front and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail that would make it actionable.

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 described in prose, which relieves much of the burden. Still, with no annotations and abstract terminology, the definition leaves an agent unsure what 'activation boundary' refers to or when invoking this tool is the right move.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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 has a verb ('Describe') and an object ('verified capabilities and the activation boundary'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'capabilities' and 'activation boundary' are abstract domain terms with no concrete indication of what is actually returned or what area of the API this covers, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish its scope from siblings like hcl_inspect_project.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The sibling names (hcl_list_projects, hcl_inspect_project, hcl_stage_add_device, hcl_stage_link) suggest an orchestration workflow where a capability-check step would matter, but the description does not connect itself to that flow.

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