get_capabilities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which conveys safety. The description adds a critical behavioral caveat: optional credential acquisition does NOT verify inference permission or deployment identity, which is valuable for the agent to know. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors such as what 'capability diagnostics' includes or any side effects beyond the annotation, so it earns a 3.

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 that is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. The caveat about credential acquisition is placed second, which is effective. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, earning a 4.

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 the tool's relative simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral caveat. However, it lacks specifics on what 'capability diagnostics' return or how to interpret results, and it does not clarify whether credentials are required for certain operations. This is a moderate gap, so a 3 is justified.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter 'check_credentials'. It mentions 'optional credential acquisition', which relates to the parameter, but it does not explicitly state that setting check_credentials to true will attempt credential acquisition or what the implications are. The parameter's meaning is partially implied but not fully specified, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource ('configuration and capability diagnostics') and a domain ('nonbillable'), but the verb 'get' is generic, and the purpose is somewhat vague. It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like get_operation, which also retrieves information. The mention of 'Nonbillable' hints at a billing context, but the overall purpose could be more specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_operation. The description implies it is for diagnostics, but does not state when it should be preferred over other sibling tools, nor does it provide context for when credential checking is needed.

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