spatial_capabilities

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful non-obvious behavior by disclosing that admins see private tasks and that the content covers analyses/maintenance plus input specs. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence communicates the core purpose, scope, and access nuance with no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple discovery tool.

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, read-only capability listing, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is listed and who can see private entries. It could be more explicit about the output structure, but the missing details are minor given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 and an empty schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The mention of 'input specs' refers to the listed tasks' inputs, not to parameters of this tool call.

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 identifies a specific resource ('tasks', clarified as analyses and maintenance processes) and states that the tool returns their input specs, with an access nuance for admins. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like spatial_list_tasks.

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 discovering available tasks and their input specs, especially before running them. However, it never explicitly says when to use this over spatial_list_tasks or spatial_run_task, leaving routing to inference.

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