gc_capability

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the snapshot represents (feature availability for front-end) but doesn't disclose return format, whether it reflects server-synced state live or cached, what the single 'action: state' produces, or any side effects. With zero annotation coverage, this is thin behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, no wasted words. The parenthetical '(features-light-up)' is informal jargon but brief. Reasonably efficient, though the opening sentence is somewhat cryptic.

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 simple (single required parameter), and there's no output schema. The description explains what the snapshot is used for (front-end feature availability), which is reasonable. However, it lacks return format details and the relationship to gc_capability_watch, which is a meaningful gap given zero annotations. For such a simple tool, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% since the only parameter (action) has a const value and a description. With a single const-constrained parameter, the schema is self-documenting. The description adds the context that the tool returns a capability-state snapshot, but the parameter itself requires no extra explanation. Baseline 3-4 is appropriate and justified here.

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 states it returns a capability snapshot the front-end uses to decide feature availability. The verb is implicit ('Returns') and the resource is 'capability snapshot', which loosely distinguishes it. However, the phrasing 'Reflected capability-state snapshot (features-light-up)' is Airtable-like jargon that may confuse an agent rather than clarify purpose. It's understandable but not crisp.

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 call this tool vs alternatives. Given there are siblings like gc_capability_watch, gc_control, and gc_cost, the description gives no differentiation. The agent cannot tell whether to call this once, repeatedly, or how it relates to reading other gc_* state. No context or exclusions provided.

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