screenslick_get_capabilities

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

The description indicates a read-only listing operation, which is appropriate. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the categories listed but does not detail any behavioral traits like idempotency, speed, or response format. It is basic but not misleading.

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 sentence, no unnecessary words. All listed categories are relevant. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given this is a simple enumeration tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to inform the agent what will be returned. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the output is a list of available capabilities, but for the complexity level it is adequate.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline is 4 because the schema already fully defines the input.

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 lists 'agent-editable commands, effect fields, animations, sound bindings, backgrounds, layouts, and workflow guidance.' The verb 'List' is explicit. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'screenslick_list_effects' or 'screenslick_list_music' which list specific subsets; this tool lists a broader set, but that distinction is only implied.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what the tool does without mentioning context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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