CGM capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a minor behavioral detail (configured providers come from env vars) but doesn't disclose output format, ordering, or any other behavioral traits. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 verb 'Lists' and packs all key output categories without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the primary outputs (providers, metrics, privacy modes) and the parameter is fully documented. It doesn't explicitly state the return structure, but given no output schema and the clear 'lists' verb, it's sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: could mention that it returns an inventory or list format, but not essential.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the privacy_mode parameter is fully described with its enum values and effects. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 3 is correct – the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and clearly scopes the resource: supported/configured providers (via env vars), available metrics, and privacy modes. This content distinguishes it from sibling tools like cgm_data_inventory or cgm_connection_status, so an agent can identify it as the capabilities inventory tool without ambiguity.

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 ('if you need to know what's supported, use this') but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like cgm_privacy_audit. This is an implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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