list_geomed_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 does signal that this is a read-only, informational operation ('describe') with no side effects, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter capability query. However, it does not disclose what the returned content looks like or whether results are static configuration or computed at call time.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names its scope in three compact items. No fluff, no repetition of the tool name, and appropriately sized for a parameterless informational 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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description states its scope (backend, measurements, limitations) and is largely adequate. A minor enhancement would be noting that it should be consulted before analyze_radiograph to inform measurement choices, but the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so the description has nothing to clarify beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool warrants a baseline of 4; nothing is missing since the tool takes no input.

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 ('describe') plus a named resource with explicit scope ('GeoMed backend, measurements, and limitations'). It reads as an informational/capability-discovery tool and is distinguishable from siblings list_available_cases (enumeration) and analyze_radiograph (analysis). Slightly vague on what 'backend' or 'limitations' concretely covers, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool versus its siblings, nor any when-not-to-use statement. Given that it clearly pairs with analyze_radiograph (understand capabilities before analyzing), explaining that call order would have been valuable, but it is left to inference.

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