get_capability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (OSCAL JSON with hyphenated keys, nulls omitted), the failure mode (returns None if UUID not found), and that ctx is injected automatically. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but these are minor for a read-only retrieval.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then a Capability explanation, then Args and Returns. It is mostly efficient, but the 'ctx' parameter is not in the input schema and the Returns section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists. These add minor clutter without harming clarity.

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 UUID-based retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and not-found behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could be slightly more explicit about read-only nature and the empty-string default.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter uuid has no schema-level description. The description only says 'uuid: UUID of the Capability to retrieve', which is minimal and does not clarify requiredness, format beyond 'UUID', or what an empty string does. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the gap.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (a single Capability by UUID), and explains what a Capability is (groups related Components, includes control implementations, description, incorporated Components). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_capabilities by directing the agent there for UUID discovery.

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?

Provides clear context: use this tool when you have a UUID and want the full OSCAL representation, and use list_capabilities() to discover UUIDs. No explicit when-not conditions or exclusions are given, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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