trigger_pd_source_caps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it doesn't say whether this is a safe read/query or has side effects on the charger state, whether results are returned directly or must be read via pd_capture_read/pd_status, or whether it can disrupt an active PD session.

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 short sentence with the key noun up front and zero filler. It could be tightened further only by adding missing routing/result information, not by removing anything.

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 zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should at minimum say how the resulting capabilities become available (direct return vs. subsequent read) and any session prerequisite. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unsure what the call accomplishes mechanically.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The `pd pdo` hint adds useful framing for what the call maps to.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Ask the charger') and resource ('PD Source_Capabilities'), with the underlying command alias (`pd pdo`) as a concrete anchor. It is distinguishable from siblings like trigger_pd_request (which negotiates) and pd_status, though the distinction is only implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus trigger_pd_request, pd_status, or the pd_capture_* family. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., whether a PD capture session or connection must be active first) or when not to call it.

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