qllm_claude_code_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is inspected (version, wrapper capabilities, help text) and the return format (JSON or Markdown), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description conveys the basic operation and return type (string), but lacks details about the returned JSON structure or keys, especially since there is no output schema provided. It is adequate but could be more exhaustive given the complexity 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 description summarizes the parameter group ('Optional executable path, help inclusion, timeout, and response format') but does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which already contains detailed descriptions for each property. Because schema description coverage is effectively high (per the schema), the description offers marginal added value, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'local Claude Code CLI version, wrapper capabilities, and optional help text'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qllm_claude_code_run (execution) and qllm_claude_code_models (listing models), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 for inspecting capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied, not actionable.

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