adaptorch_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the return contents, which is useful but not behavioral context such as cost, caching, or freshness of the reported capabilities.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and the payload. Nothing wasted, nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description moderately compensates by naming the three categories of returned data. For a zero-arg introspection tool this is close to sufficient, though it doesn't say whether the result is static, versioned, or environment-dependent.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores a 4. Nothing in the description conflicts and no parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('Return') and enumerates the resources returned: synthesis modes, connectors, and server capabilities. It is clearly a meta/introspection tool, distinguishable from action-oriented siblings like adaptorch_run, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from adaptorch_server_metrics or adaptorch_plan_catalog.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this is a discovery call to make before planning or running. There is no explicit 'call this first' guidance and no mention of alternatives or exclusions among the eight siblings.

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