noetic.capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Discover' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not state what happens if scope is absent, whether a session is required, whether results are filtered by permissions, or what kind of output is returned.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, its brevity is more under-specification than effective conciseness, since important usage and parameter context are absent.

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?

The tool is simple in structure, but the description leaves key context undefined: what 'scope' means, how sessionId factors in, and what the returned capability vocabulary looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not give an agent enough to invoke it confidently.

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 schema describes a single optional sessionId with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description never mentions sessionId or explains how it affects the discovery, so the agent receives no semantic help beyond the bare parameter name and type.

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 and resource: 'Discover' the 'grantable capability vocabulary within scope.' This conveys a clear read-like exploration action and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as grant, revoke, or check_rights, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives like noetic.discover, noetic.territory, or noetic.check_rights. The phrase 'within scope' hints at a dependency on context but does not explain how to establish or interpret that scope.

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