inspect_collection_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating it performs no sampling or attaching, which adds behavioral specificity about non-invasiveness. No additional side effects or return details are needed given the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action word, and every phrase adds value (perf, kernel policy, capabilities, collection-mode availability, and the negative scope).

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 zero-parameter inspection tool with output schema present and annotations covering safety, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it will learn and what side effects it won't have.

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, so the description carries the full semantic load. It clearly lists the categories of information available, which is sufficient for a parameterless inspection tool.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates the exact resources (perf, kernel policy, capabilities, collection-mode availability). It also distinguishes itself from collection tools by stating 'without sampling or attaching to a process,' making it clear this is a pre-flight check, not a collection action.

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 collection readiness before actually sampling/attaching, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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