get_capability_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' plus the manifest/inventory framing strongly implies a safe, read-only, non-mutating call, and it does disclose the dual-mode behavior. However, it says nothing about what happens if an unknown capability name is supplied, or whether results are cached/static — modest gaps for a discovery tool.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the dual behavior is stated up front with the parameter-dependent branch named second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be re-explained, and the description covers the branching logic adequately. The remaining gap is the legal value space for the optional 'capability' parameter, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description — an agent still cannot construct a valid single-entry call from the definition alone.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that 'capability' selects one capability's manifest entry versus returning the whole inventory. It does not, however, indicate what a valid capability identifier looks like (tool name, dotted id, etc.), which leaves the only parameter under-specified.

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 ('Return') plus two clearly named resources: the capability inventory and a capability's manifest entry. An agent can tell this is a discovery/help tool rather than an action tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nearby documentation siblings like get_tool_docs or policy_info.

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 either/or phrasing implies the usage pattern: omit the parameter for the full inventory, pass a capability for a single entry. That much is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to get_tool_docs or policy_info as alternatives for related documentation needs.

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