list_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so: no mention of read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or effects. The single sentence provides no insight into how the tool behaves beyond a basic listing.

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 too brief—only one sentence—but not for conciseness; it under-specifies. It front-loads the core action but omits essential details. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence does not adequately describe the 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?

Given 4 parameters (none explained), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover pagination, filtering, response structure, or the meaning of capabilities. The agent cannot effectively use this tool without additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. Parameters like limit, offset, project, and capability_id are completely unexplained. The agent receives no help understanding their meaning, format, or defaults. Description adds zero value beyond the raw schema names.

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 'List API capabilities exposed by OpenProject' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (capabilities). The tool name is self-explanatory and distinct from sibling list tools like list_actions or list_boards, as capabilities refer to a different entity. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a capability, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred. The description is silent on context, making it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.

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