work_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Confirm' weakly implies a read-only lookup, but there is no statement about side effects, auth requirements, or what the confirmation actually returns; the presence of an output schema covers return values but not the operational profile.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the subject front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail scored elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a discovery tool embedded in a dense work_* family the description omits what 'capabilities' actually covers and how it relates to the other local-work tools. Given no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition is too thin to call correctly.

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 single 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a bare empty-string default, and the description never mentions it. With one undocumented parameter, the description must compensate for the schema gap and does not — an agent cannot tell whether 'project' selects the repository to inspect or is merely an optional scope hint.

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 verb ('Confirm') and a resource ('active repository and available local review operations'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this discovery/introspection tool from near-siblings like work_state, work_session_status, or work_reviews, leaving the agent unsure which of the work_* tools actually answers this question.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With ~20 work_* siblings present, the agent gets no signal about when capabilities-checking is appropriate versus calling work_state or work_session_status directly.

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