rew_capability_negotiate

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only nature by mentioning 'read-only command surfaces' but does not explicitly state the tool itself is non-destructive or safe. It also omits potential prerequisites (e.g., active REW connection) or what happens if REW is unavailable. These are meaningful gaps for a discovery tool.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key action and target. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and structured for quick consumption.

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?

As a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but lacks details about expected output format, failure modes, or prerequisites (like needing a live REW session). For an agent to use this effectively in a workflow, some indication of what the response looks like or conditions for success would be helpful. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is effectively complete (100% coverage as there are no properties). The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose, which is unnecessary for parameter semantics but appropriate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Detect'), resource ('live REW API/version'), and scope ('supported read-only command surfaces'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on capability negotiation rather than execution or analysis, making it unique among the many REW-related tools.

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 gives a temporal usage context ('before a workflow uses them') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies it is a preliminary discovery step, but no exclusions or sibling references are provided. For a capability negotiation tool, the when-to-use guidance is partial.

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