list_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 indicates a read-only operation (listing), which is appropriate for a capability introspection tool. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or behavior beyond listing, which is acceptable for a simple query.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. It is efficiently structured with no unnecessary words, but it could be slightly expanded to improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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 zero parameters and a presumably simple output (the schema exists but isn't detailed here), the description is adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'capability boundary' means or how the output is structured, which may leave an AI agent unsure of the return format.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 might be considered, but given the brevity and lack of context, 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists the capability boundary of 'cwtwb', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'describe_capability' and 'get_client_interaction_capabilities' by focusing on the declared boundary rather than a single capability or client-specific capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_capability' or 'get_client_interaction_capabilities'. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.

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