glass_capabilities

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: no session required, default backend behavior, status semantics, and the caveat that profile membership does not imply backend support. It does not contradict annotations and gives an agent realistic expectations about tool behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently adds status categories, notes, session requirements, and caveats. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what will be reported (status per tool, tool_profile, notes) and key call semantics like default backend and session requirements. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could be slightly more explicit about the response shape.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single backend parameter, including valid values and default behavior, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds the profile-membership caveat, but much of the backend defaulting information repeats the schema.

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 ('Report') and identifies the resource: live backend operation status, affected exposed tools, and tool_profile. It also enumerates the status categories, which clarifies scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as glass_doctor, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 implies the tool is used to check backend capability/status and notes that no session is required and the default backend is used. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling diagnostic tools or provide when-not conditions, leaving usage selection partly to inference.

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