get_capability_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get the input schema', which adds no context about read-only guarantees, error behavior, or return format. The output schema exists but is not described in the text, leaving the tool's behavior under-specified.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple one-parameter getter tool, the description adequately covers purpose and key source. An output schema exists, which presumably documents the return structure. It lacks details on failure scenarios, but overall the description is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 clarifies that 'key' is a capability key returned by search_capabilities(), giving meaningful semantics. However, it does not describe the key's format or provide examples, though for a single string parameter this is somewhat acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'input schema for a capability key', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools search_capabilities (which searches) and execute_capability (which executes). It tells the user exactly what the tool does.

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 states the key is 'returned by search_capabilities()', implying the user should first search and then retrieve the schema for a resulting key. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to execute_capability.

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