capabilities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description does not contradict these but also adds no behavioral context beyond listing what is discoverable. No information about response format, caching, or auth requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and enumerates the discovery scope compactly. However, the enumeration of four categories in one sentence is dense without structuring, and there is no elaboration on any of them.

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?

There is an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters the schema burden is minimal. Still, for a capability-discovery tool the description could clarify what an agent should do with the results or when it is worthwhile to call it. It is minimally viable but leaves usage context to the agent's inference.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per calibration the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to misrepresent, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 names what is being discovered (input types, evidence states, runtime requirements, interfaces), but the verb is essentially 'Discover' and the tool is a metadata/capability introspection endpoint. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like specs_validate or runtime_devices, which also touch on runtime and specs concerns. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool versus any of the 23 siblings. An agent has no indication whether this should be called at startup, before audits, or only in certain contexts. The description gives no when/when-not/alternatives information.

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