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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Discovery: ...' and does not state that it returns a simple list, is a read-only operation, or describe any side effects or output structure, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is compact, though slightly telegraphic ('Discovery:'), which is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool, this is close to adequate: it lists the main content categories. However, 'profiles' is vague, and there is no mention of output format or how the agent should use the returned information, which is valuable for a tool that helps orient the agent.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description need not explain anything about inputs.

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 identifies the tool as a discovery/list tool for namespaces, composite tools, and profiles. This distinguishes it from the many specific sibling tools, though 'Discovery' is a noun rather than an explicit verb.

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 word 'Discovery' implies the tool is meant to be used to explore available capabilities before invoking specific siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The context of many siblings makes this use case fairly clear.

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