get_agent_capabilities

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it retrieves capabilities, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any constraints (e.g., what happens if agent_id is invalid). Minimal transparency.

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 description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise but could be organized with more structure (e.g., bullet points for usage).

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?

Despite only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'capabilities' are, the return format, or how it differs from similar sibling tools (e.g., list_capability_types). Incomplete context for effective tool selection.

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 coverage is 100% (the parameter description matches the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema-provided description of agent_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it gets 'detailed capabilities for a specific agent', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent_did (gets DID) and list_capability_types (lists all types), but does not explicitly differentiate usage.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use, or how it relates to sibling tools like discover_agents or list_capability_types.

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