get_api_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds a meaningful behavior detail by noting that it uses /swagger/v1/swagger.json when available, but it does not disclose what happens when that endpoint is unavailable, whether results are cached, or how the 'refresh' parameter affects behavior.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded and the swagger.json detail is directly relevant.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation in the schema, so the description must carry most of the burden. It gives the general purpose but omits parameter semantics, fallback behavior when swagger.json is unavailable, and what the returned capabilities look like.

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 compensate by explaining parameters such as 'profile' and 'refresh'. It does not mention either parameter, leaving their meaning entirely to the schema's bare names and types.

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 ('Inspect') and names a clear resource ('REST/GraphQL capabilities for the Survey Solutions server'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rest_request or openapi_operation, but the inspect/discover intent is apparent.

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 verb 'Inspect' implies this is for discovering what API operations are available, and the mention of swagger.json gives a concrete mechanism. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over rest_request, openapi_operation, or graphql_query, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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