get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or how the optional 'path' parameter affects behavior. The description adds no insight beyond the literal return of information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

The tool is a simple capability query, and the description covers the main return items. However, the optional 'path' parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of usage context or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the parameter ambiguity leaves the description only minimally complete.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'path' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description completely fails to clarify the meaning or purpose of 'path,' leaving the user without any help understanding this parameter.

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 'Return supported source types, adapters, limits and current feature availability,' specifying both the action (return) and the resource (capabilities information). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on specific design or review tasks, making its purpose unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any context like 'call before other operations' or 'use to discover available features,' and there are no exclusions or alternative references.

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