get_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds the useful context that all dimensions are in mm. It does not explicitly state side effects are absent, but for a capability query the meaning is clear enough.

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 sentence of about 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Report' followed by the specific output contents. Every word carries information, with no filler or repetition.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what will be returned: version, supported primitives, and defaults, with the unit convention. It is not overly detailed about output structure, but that is acceptable given the simplicity of the tool.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it adds no param-related details because none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and states the exact resource: OpenSCAD version and supported primitives with defaults. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all focus on model creation, modification, or export rather than environment 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the nature of a capabilities report implies that it should be consulted before creating or modifying models to know supported primitives. The intended context is inferable from the tool's purpose, but the description does not state it directly.

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