get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The mention of 'limits and privacy boundaries' signals that returned content carries constraints and data-handling rules, which is useful extra context, but the description does not say the call is side-effect free, cheap, or cacheable, and the output schema carries the rest.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every noun in the enumeration maps to a distinct category of returned information.

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?

With no parameters, a read-only annotation, and a full output schema describing the return shape, the description needs only to establish scope, which it does. The one missing piece is sequencing guidance — telling the agent to consult this before invoking voice or provider-dependent tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is nominal since the arguments object is empty.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the resource contents: installed voices, provider options, limits, and privacy boundaries. This is clearly distinct from the media/video siblings, none of which describe capability introspection, though the phrasing is a field list rather than a single crisp purpose statement.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named. The agent must infer that this is a discovery call to make before choosing voices in preview_voice or options in generate_video — that inference is reasonable but not stated.

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