project_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates a read-only operation, but lacks details on potential side effects or special behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool, a 3 is adequate, but it could mention that it's non-destructive or cheap.

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 sentence that starts with the verb 'Return', directly stating the action. Every word is necessary and no redundancy. It is maximally concise.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not elaborate on what 'declared runtime capabilities' or 'contract coverage' means, leaving room for ambiguity. A more descriptive sentence would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema covers everything. Baseline 4 applies: the description does not need to add parameter information, and it doesn't. The tool's simplicity 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and mentions 'declared runtime capabilities and contract coverage', clearly stating what the tool does. However, without title and given siblings like project_manifest and project_tool_catalog, it does not differentiate from similar tools, so it's not a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like project_manifest or project_tool_catalog likely have overlapping purposes, but no context is given to help the agent choose correctly.

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