gis.list_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, and the verbose flag's effect on output volume is disclosed, but nothing is said about cost, latency, caching, or whether workspace policy reflects the caller's permissions. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block that documents the single parameter. Every line earns its place; the only minor waste is formatting the docstring convention rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, leaving purpose and the one parameter as the real burden — both are covered. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the six sibling tools, which matters given how many alternatives exist.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains both states of verbose — categories with top examples by default versus all algorithm IDs when true. This is meaningful behavior-level detail the bare boolean schema does not convey. It stops short of defining what a 'category' or 'top example' is.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'List supported operations, algorithm categories, and workspace policy' tells the agent exactly what content comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gis.plan or gis.run, but the discovery nature of the tool is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus gis.plan, gis.answer, or gis.run, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer that this is a discovery entry point from the name and verb alone.

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