arvan_capabilities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that calling without arguments returns a compact overview, and with a key returns endpoints with request-body hints. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the two distinct behaviors.

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?

Two concise paragraphs. First sentence states purpose, second paragraph explains usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only) and presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains both call variants and the relation to arvan_request.

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 coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains the optional 'service' parameter well, listing valid keys (compute, network, storage, cdn, dns, vod, live) and the effect of omitting vs. providing it. This adds significant meaning.

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 discovers ArvanCloud products and API endpoints. It distinguishes two usage modes: without arguments for a compact overview, and with a service key for detailed endpoint lists. This differentiates it from siblings like arvan_list_servers and arvan_request.

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?

Explicitly guides when to call without arguments (overview) and when to pass a service key (full endpoint list). It also mentions the output can be fed to arvan_request, providing clear direction for the agent.

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