rew_diagnostic_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait — that nothing is executed/run, implying a non-destructive read. However, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., REW must be actively running for 'live' surfaces), what the returned surface data looks like, or any error/availability behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

A single tightly-written sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the distinguishing 'without running them' clause. Zero filler — every word earns its place, and the constraining trait is stated up front.

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?

For a zero-parameter capability-introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and names the surfaces (SPL, RTA, stepped-measurement, generator). Yet it leaves ambiguity about what an agent actually receives back and what 'live' presupposes (REW running), so completeness 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 0 parameters, so with an empty schema the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document, and the text makes no parameter claims. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and no compensation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') tied to a concrete resource (live REW SPL, RTA, stepped-measurement, and generator command surfaces) and clarifies the non-executing nature with 'without running them', which distinguishes it from rew_diagnostic_execute. However, 'command surfaces' is mildly abstract and it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'without running them' implies this is the read-only capability probe used before executing (contrasting with rew_diagnostic_execute and rew_diagnostic_plan), so the usage is implied. But no alternative is explicitly named and no exclusion conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool over its many REW siblings.

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