capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that every count is computed at call time (freshness guarantee), that each carries a 'means' line defining the counted unit, and that counts are never hand-maintained. It omits explicit read-only/no-side-effect confirmation, but the nature of the tool makes that low-risk.

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?

Front-loaded with the tag and the core statement, then two supporting sentences about freshness and authority. Efficient overall, though 'how large the keeping is' and 'where its boundaries are' lean slightly poetic and could be tightened.

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 no-param, no-annotation introspection tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate framing: what it reports, how the numbers are produced, and why to prefer it over static prose. It could name its closest siblings to be fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and schema coverage is 100% — the omission of parameter discussion is correct rather than a gap.

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 states a specific resource — the live capability statement — and enumerates its contents (verifiability, tools/endpoints, keeping size, boundaries). It's clearly an introspection/discovery tool, and the [FIND · plumbing] tag reinforces that. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors like 'kernel', 'library_health', or 'now'.

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?

"Read this instead of trusting any count written in prose" gives a real when-to-use directive, but it is framed against prose counts rather than against sibling tools. No conditions for when NOT to call it, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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