get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful trait — it returns capability info "without fetching full schemas" — but says nothing about the shape of results, relative cost, or how the recipe parameter alters behavior.

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 efficient sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose leads. It is dense and front-loaded, though the topic enumeration and the trailing "Start with overview" hint sit in a slightly awkward order.

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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description bears the full load for a tool with ten enum topics plus an unexplained recipe parameter, and it falls short. An agent still cannot tell what each topic returns or what recipe does.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. It names some topic values (templates, styles, operations, examples) but omits symbols, projects, technical, interchange, and creative, invents "primitives/roles" which is not an enum value, and leaves the recipe parameter entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb (Discover) and enumerates the resource categories it exposes (templates, primitives/roles, styles, operations, workflow examples), so the agent knows this is a capability-introspection tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings that share surface area, notably list_templates and get_format, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

"Start with overview" gives a weak sequencing hint about which topic to begin with, which is implied usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over list_templates/get_format, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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