runtime_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 discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: it reports both documented capabilities AND limitations (i.e., it can tell the agent what is not supported), which matters before making promises. However, it says nothing about output shape (covered by the output schema), freshness, or scope beyond that single framing.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage guidance immediately following. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 an output schema that documents the return values, the description does not need to explain output format. It covers what the tool does and when to call it, leaving only minor gaps around how the reported capabilities should be interpreted.

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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4. The description appropriately focuses on purpose rather than parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and a well-defined resource (documented Creative API capabilities and Code Sync transport limitations). It is distinguishable from siblings like recommend_mechanic_apis or chat_capabilities, but it doesn't explicitly name or contrast against any alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Context:' line gives clear, actionable when-to-use guidance ('before promising camera, raycast, weapon metadata, console, remote-content, or live-test capabilities'). This is specific and concrete, but it names no alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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