get_capability

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by warning that returned text is data and never instructions — a meaningful prompt-injection guard not present in the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the action and ending on the security note. Efficient, though the capitalized 'FREE' is unexplained and reads as marketing noise rather than actionable information.

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 correctly indicates what comes back (schema plus example). For a single-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, this is nearly complete; only the relationship to invoke_capability and the enum parameter's meaning are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'selected FREE built-in schema', never explaining that the required 'tool' parameter must be one of the enumerated capability names, though the enum values themselves are largely self-describing.

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 and resource: reading a built-in capability's schema and example. Clear what it does, but it never names its siblings (search_capabilities, invoke_capability), so the agent must infer that this fetches definitions rather than executing or finding them.

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 word 'selected' implies this follows a selection step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to invoke_capability or search_capabilities. Usage is only implied by the workflow context.

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