get_client_qos_capabilities

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: the operation is read-only, previews are local, and apply_client_qos_policy performs no controller mutation in the current release. This meaningfully sets expectations and is consistent with the annotation.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains useful caveats. The Args section repeats schema-provided information but is not excessive; the overall structure is clear and efficient.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only capability check, the description is largely complete: it explains the preflight role, related policy tools, and local/no-mutation behavior. It does not specify the exact return format, but 'reports whether' is sufficient for an agent to act on the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section essentially duplicates the schema's parameter text. No additional semantic detail is added beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline applies.

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 verb and resource: it 'reports whether a validated controller QoS adapter is available' for a targeted device. It also references plan_client_qos_policy and apply_client_qos_policy, which disambiguates it from nearby QoS-related siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before planning a policy to set expectations.' It names related QoS tools and clarifies that apply_client_qos_policy performs no controller mutation, but it does not fully enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or alternative selection criteria.

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