Get Hermes API capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered by annotations. The description adds the 'writing redacted receipts' behavior, which is useful context. The schema reveals that the capability filter parameter is effectively ignored ('returns all capabilities regardless'), which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The mention of 'writing redacted receipts' adds behavioral context without excessive verbosity. Efficient and reasonably complete for what it communicates.

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 read-only capabilities query with a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It doesn't need to document return values since an output schema exists. Minor gap: doesn't clarify the purpose/value of the tool versus related status/health/skills query tools given the large sibling set.

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% with a single optional parameter that has detailed enum values and a description noting the parameter is effectively ignored. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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 'Typed GET /v1/capabilities wrapper that returns the configured Hermes API server capability surface'. It has a specific verb (GET/returns) and resource (capability surface). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like hermes_status_overview or hermes_api_health, which could overlap in purpose. The 'writing redacted receipts' behavior is a useful differentiator but unclear.

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 it's for fetching the server capability surface but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this vs alternatives like hermes_api_health, hermes_api_skills_list, or hermes_api_toolsets_list which overlap in capability spaces. The parameter's default behavior (returns all regardless) is documented in the schema, not the description. No when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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