quipu_workflow_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a pure capability probe and "never" returns configuration or credentials, which tells the agent this call is non-invasive and safe to make preemptively.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the data-exposure guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it never states the shape of the answer (boolean, enum, or status object) or how to interpret a negative result. For a trivial zero-parameter probe this is a modest gap, but it is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the capability answer.

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?

"Read whether the server enforces direct-workflow guards" is a specific verb-plus-resource statement, and naming quipu_update ties it to the sibling it supports. It is clear what the tool answers, though "direct-workflow guards" is unexplained jargon an agent may not fully interpret.

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?

"before using quipu_update" gives an explicit trigger condition for calling this tool. It does not say what to do with the answer (e.g., whether to skip or proceed with quipu_update when guards are enforced), nor does it name any alternative capability checks.

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