seeany_get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add meaningful behavioral context. It does so by specifying exactly what information is returned: models, ratios, resolutions, and execution mode. This goes beyond a vague 'get capabilities' without contradicting the 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and directly lists the returned data categories. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 capability-listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the output categories and there is no output schema to elaborate. Minor gap is the lack of any indication of how the returned values are structured or formatted, but this is low-impact for this tool type.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description needs no further parameter-level detail.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource scope (SeeAny image generation models, ratios, resolutions, and current execution mode). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account or generation-oriented tools without appearing generic.

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 call this tool versus the sibling tools. While its purpose is fairly obvious, the description does not mention that it should be used for discovery before generation, nor does it state any conditions or alternatives.

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