capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately describes that this is a read-only introspection tool that reports environment capabilities and server version, and gives specific conditions for each tier. No side effects or hidden behavior are implied.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses structured bullets-like sentences to explain each tier. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no side effects) and has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. The description fully covers the tool's purpose, tier logic, and version reporting. Nothing important is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds sufficient context about what the tool inspects, making the lack of parameters clear and expected.

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 it reports available capability tiers, with specific detail on each tier's conditions. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are operational (emu, store, build, etc.).

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?

It explains the prerequisites for each tier (e.g., tier2 requires Pillow, tier4 requires token), giving clear context on when and how to interpret results. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but no alternatives exist for capability checking.

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