sigma_api_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description confirms a non-destructive, exploratory nature without contradicting. It adds that the tool covers both capabilities and limitations ('can and cannot do'), but does not disclose deeper behavioral details like response structure or error semantics. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-formed sentence communicates the complete purpose without any filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and immediately clear, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete for invocation purposes. It clearly defines what the tool does (describe capabilities and limitations) and is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the description needs no parameter-level detail, and the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty, so there is nothing to add. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Describe' with a clear resource ('what the Sigma REST API can and cannot do programmatically'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are all action-oriented for specific API operations.

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 description implies use when one needs an overview of API capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No direct contrast with sibling tools is provided, so guidance is limited to implied context.

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