get_astah_capabilities

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the output scope (exact types, known limitations) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects or return formatting, but for a capability listing this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides key content details without any redundancy or filler.

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 description fully covers what can be expected: it names the categories of information (diagrams, elements, relationships) and the inclusion of known limitations. With no parameters and no output schema, this is complete for a discovery tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally emphasizes what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is appropriate and adds no confusing parameter cues.

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 ('Lista') and identifies the resource (diagram types, elements, relationships, limitations). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on capability discovery rather than creation or validation.

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 usage context is implied: one would call this to learn what the server can create before using create tools. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison with alternatives, so it relies on the user to infer.

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