steamvr_vrcmd_capability_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'inspect binaries' without mentioning return values, side effects, or operational constraints (e.g., read-only nature).

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 concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the verb 'Inspect'. However, it omits important structural details such as bullet points or examples that could improve clarity without increasing length significantly.

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 single optional parameter and lack of output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how to specify the parameter. Context around usage (e.g., when to provide 'steamvr_root') is missing.

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 lists one optional parameter 'steamvr_root' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what this parameter does or provide any contextual 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('local SteamVR binaries') with a scope ('capture, replay, polling, and driver simulation string evidence'). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'local_steamvr_automation_inventory', and the phrase 'string evidence' is somewhat vague.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools that may have overlapping purposes, this omission is critical.

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