supported_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior: entries have test status, untested capabilities have a human approval gate, and out-of-scope requests should be declined. It does not describe the exact output structure, but an output schema is present so that burden is reduced.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical usage constraints, and the third gives an explicit fallback behavior. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 has zero parameters, an output schema, and a clear one-line purpose, the description is complete. It covers when to consult it, how to interpret test status, and what to do for requests outside the supported map, leaving no important selection or invocation gaps.

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 the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed; it focuses on the meaning of the returned capability information, which 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 clearly states this tool reports what the server supports by scientific domain, which establishes it as a capability-discovery resource. The verb is implied rather than explicit, but the first sentence is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on jobs, calibration, and searches.

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?

The description explicitly says to consult this before making promises and instructs that out-of-map requests should be declined by referencing out_of_scope. It also warns that 'candidate' and 'untested' entries require human-run graduation before unattended use, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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