cs_agent_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining optional live probes and listing what is included (agents, facade tools, limits). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key instruction, and every clause adds meaningful guidance. Zero waste.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the kinds of information returned (names, probes, facade tools, execution limits), enough to set expectations for a read-only listing tool. Could be more detailed about output format but 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the description adds only marginal context about 'live availability probes' aligning with probeAgents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists configured agent names, probes, facade tools, and execution limits for delegation decisions. It uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource (capabilities), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cs_agent_list by emphasizing its decision-support role.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call first when considering delegation or heterogeneous execution', giving clear when-to-use context. Lacks explicit exclusions but provides strong precedence and decision guidance.

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