tcai_capability_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only query operation ('query', 'list'), but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature, permissions needed, or other side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the key concept and then specifying the two operations. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description hints at the return format ('expected-valence map', 'list...table'). It covers the two modes of operation adequately. Could benefit from more detail on data types, but it is complete enough for a simple query tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one optional parameter. The description adds meaning by clarifying the two modes: providing an action queries its expected valence; omitting it lists the whole table. This goes beyond the schema's description of the parameter alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it queries an action's expected valence or lists the entire capability table. The verb 'query' and the resource 'capability model' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like tcai_self_model or tcai_curiosity.

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 usage: use when you need the expected outcome of an action or to see the learned table. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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