get_snapshot_capabilities

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only operation', corroborating the readOnlyHint annotation, and goes beyond annotations by disclosing exactly what the response contains: supported report formats, native backup/restore availability, and the configured source list. Since there is no output schema, this fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the opening defines the purpose, the middle states safety and return contents, and the closing provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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-discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it relative to related export operations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 ('Describe'), a specific resource ('portable snapshot and report capabilities plus native backup limits'), and enumerates concrete output contents (html, csv formats, native backup availability, source list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export and verification tools.

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 explicitly instructs agents to use this tool to learn what export_portable_snapshot and export_network_report can produce before calling them, naming the relevant sibling tools and the triggering condition. This is direct and actionable usage guidance.

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