office_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the envelope of returned content categories (operations, path roots, converters, limitations), which is useful but thin; it says nothing about result size, caching, or whether the capability list is environment-dependent.

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 sentence with no filler, and the four returned categories are front-loaded. Every word earns its place and it fits the scope of a no-argument introspection tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the four content categories an agent will receive. What is missing is any indication of the shape or granularity of the result (e.g., whether limitations are per-format or global), but for a simple listing tool this is close to sufficient.

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 with an empty object schema, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for parameterless tools applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing or implying any arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and enumerates the exact resource categories returned: supported Office operations, path roots, converters, and known limitations. That is far more informative than a tautology like 'Show capabilities'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly meta-sounding sibling office_native_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool to call before/instead of guessing which office_* operation exists. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., first, before unknown operations) or when not to (e.g., when the operation is already known), and no named alternative such as office_native_status.

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