read_capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the read scope, so it neither enriches nor contradicts the 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps too terse given the ambiguous "capacity" vs "growth stage" terminology, but structure is clean.

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, and the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. However, the description never clarifies what a "growth stage" contains or how capacity state relates to the sibling capacity-event tools, leaving a small gap for this tool's role in the family.

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 description mirrors the schema's own role semantics (specific role vs. all roles) but adds no extra meaning such as accepted role strings, casing, or behavior for an unknown role. With a single low-complexity parameter this is adequate but not additive.

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 gives a clear verb ("Read") and resource ("growth stage" / capacity) scoped by role or all roles. It is understandable on its own, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_capacity_events or check_stagnation, which also surface capacity-related state.

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?

"for a specific role or all roles" implies the two usage modes but never states when to prefer this tool over update_capacity_stage or get_capacity_events. The guidance is inferable from the parameters rather than spelled out as an explicit when/when-not rule.

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