exact_get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral nuance by saying capabilities are 'detected or verified,' which implies active checking rather than a static lookup, but it does not elaborate on what detection/verification entails or what failure states might occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core purpose immediately and earns every word.

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, read-only, idempotent introspection tool with rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by describing the shape or semantics of the returned capabilities, especially since there is no output schema, but the current level is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are effectively not applicable. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('capabilities detected or verified against the configured Exact installation'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on server info, entities, actions, schemas, and records. The phrase 'detected or verified' adds useful specificity beyond a generic 'get 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?

The description implies the tool is used when an agent needs to know what capabilities the Exact installation supports. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exact_get_server_info or exact_list_actions, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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