capability_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status and warns that unsupported operations are not emulated, which is a behavioral limitation. It does not detail side effects or authentication specifics, but for a zero-parameter read-only inventory tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 efficiently conveys what is returned and a critical safety caveat. No fluff, clearly structured with a semicolon separating the main function and the limitation.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter inventory tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: it reports capability and bridge status, and warns about emulation limits. It is brief but adequate, though it could specify the exact output format or error behavior if needed.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds context about the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the tool returns 'pinned runtime capability and the authenticated native-server bridge status', specifying a distinct resource and action. It also differentiates from sibling tools by indicating it is an inventory/status check, not an operation tool like native_api_operation.

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 implies this tool is for checking capability and bridge status before relying on native operations, especially with the caution that 'unsupported operations are not safely emulated'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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