Capabilities Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that a live Tinker server round-trip can happen — but says nothing about latency, failure modes when the server is unreachable, or the difference between the cached and live views.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action ('describe Tuner's tool surface') comes before the optional secondary behavior.

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-value details are unnecessary, and the one-sentence scope is enough to call the tool correctly. Slight gap: nothing tells the agent what 'tool surface' encompasses or when the live view is worth requesting.

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 schema gives no meaning for `live`; the description is the only source and it does imply that the flag triggers a live Tinker fetch. However, it never states the type, default, or cost of that live call, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: describes Tuner's tool surface and can fetch live Tinker capabilities. It is clearly distinct from all siblings (recipes, training, datasets, checkpoints), though it never explicitly says how it differs from a generic listing tool.

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?

No guidance on when an agent should call this versus other discovery tools such as models_list or recipes_list, and no stated condition for when to set the live flag beyond the word 'optionally'.

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