list_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of installation-supported capabilities, but does not state that it is read-only, whether results are environment-specific or static, whether any auth or configuration is required, or how complete the list is. Only the phrase 'this installation supports' adds minor context.

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 short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than properly structured. It lacks a clear verb or lead statement that would make the purpose immediately parseable.

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 output schema exists and the tool takes no parameters, so the description only needs to explain what the list contains and when to use it. It identifies the categories but omits the action verb, usage context, and any behavioral notes, leaving gaps for an agent deciding among sibling list/describe/get tools.

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 there is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the resource categories returned (providers, filters, styles, analyzers, printers), which gives a vague sense of the tool's content. But it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit statement that this lists capabilities, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the tool name. It does partially distinguish from list_models by naming non-model capabilities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to siblings like list_models, describe_model, get_spec, or doctor. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and content categories.

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