execute_capability

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Execute' implies an action that may have side effects, but the description does not mention what the execution does, whether it returns a result, requires authentication, or is irreversible. It provides no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. It starts with the verb 'Execute' and immediately conveys the primary purpose. There is no waste, redundant phrasing, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic execution operation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the execution behavior, what a successful execution looks like, potential errors, or how this fits into the workflow with sibling tools (e.g., obtaining the schema first). It is minimally sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks critical context for safe and correct usage.

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?

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description compensates by explaining the roles of the parameters: 'key' identifies the capability and 'input' must match the capability's schema. This adds meaningful constraint beyond the raw schema types, particularly the requirement that the input object conforms to a specific schema. It does not elaborate on the input structure, but the key relationship is clearly conveyed.

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 the tool's action: 'Execute a capability by key' with the input schema constraint. It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (capability), and the 'by key' mechanism distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_capabilities (searching) and get_capability_schema (retrieving schemas).

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 description implies usage by saying 'with input matching its schema,' suggesting that users may need to obtain the schema first (via get_capability_schema). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage guidance is minimal and only implied.

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