get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool takes no arguments, does not require a live vehicle, and returns a specific structure with fields like 'capabilities' and 'guardrails'. It also explains the behavioral impact of the 'readonly' guardrail on other tools.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then provides key details (no arguments, no live vehicle needed, call first), and ends with the return shape and an important behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description does an excellent job of explaining the output structure and its implications. It covers the return fields, the meaning of 'readonly', and the recommended usage order, making it fully complete for a discovery tool.

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?

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so there is no need to explain parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Takes no arguments' and 'does not require a live vehicle', which clarifies usage 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 clearly states the purpose: 'Discover what this vehicle can do and which guardrails are active.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_flight_mode, arm) by being the only one that returns capabilities and guardrails and is safe to call without a live vehicle.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first' and instructs to 'Plan only with listed capabilities; if "readonly" is true, every tool that can move the vehicle will be rejected.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and its implications for subsequent tool selection.

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