What can nable do

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are tailored to connected accounts and include underlying tool names only when detailed=True.

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?

The main purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and the example phrases are helpful. The repeated examples are slightly redundant, but they reinforce the trigger conditions without obscuring the call semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in detail. The description covers purpose, invocation timing, and the only parameter, making it complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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%, but the single parameter is explained in the description: detailed=True lists underlying tool names. That compensates for the schema gap, though it does not describe the default false behavior explicitly beyond the schema.

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 capability-discovery function and makes its scope clear: it shows everything nable can do, tailored to connected accounts. This is distinguishable from sibling tools such as cost summaries, provider connections, and policy checks.

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 explicit trigger phrases, states when to call it after a user connects their first account, and explains the detailed flag. Alternatives are implicit because this is the dedicated capability-discovery tool among operational siblings.

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