bridge_list_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: by default it returns compact metadata, includeSchemas expands to full input/output schemas, adapter narrows to one family, and no permissions are required. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for this simple read-only tool that is a minor gap.

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 two sentences plus a bracketed version/permission note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to parameter guidance, and contains no filler content.

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 simple read-only discovery tool, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, output-format choices, and permission context. An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. It could go slightly further by stating when an agent should call this before invoking sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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 carry the burden. It explains both parameters: includeSchemas retrieves full input/output schemas, and adapter filters to one capability family. The enum values themselves are self-explanatory, though the description does not state defaults or that adapter accepts exactly one family.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Discover compact tool metadata.' The adapter enum families make the scope concrete (bridge, network, calendar, etc.), so an agent can distinguish this meta-tool from the specific action siblings. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

It provides parameter-level usage ('Set includeSchemas to retrieve full schemas', 'adapter to filter one capability family') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or conditions. The discovery purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no stated alternative or trigger condition.

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