Fullbleed capabilities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds limited extra behavioral context by naming the content type (feature map, PDF profile requirements), but it does not disclose caching, auth requirements, or other operational traits. A 3 is appropriate given the annotations carry the main behavioral load.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first sentence states what is read and when; the second routes to the alternative tool. 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 zero-parameter read-only capability query with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, when to call it, and where to go for deeper schemas or limitations. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the call shape. The description appropriately avoids repeating parameter details; baseline 4 applies for a zero-param tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the installed runtime's compact feature map and PDF profile requirements.' It also distinguishes this tool from fullbleed_agent_contract by assigning the latter to command schemas and detailed limitations, letting an agent route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit timing rule ('before choosing features') and names the alternative tool with its specific purpose for other needs. This is a clear when-to-use and when-to-use-else statement.

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