get_capability_setup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by emphasizing that the state is durable and persists beyond the original request, which is important for users who need to poll or recover state after a transient request context disappears.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read durable capability setup state') and places the important temporal condition at the end. Every part of the sentence adds useful 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?

This is a low-complexity read operation with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any explicit guidance on how to obtain or identify operation_id, and it does not clarify what 'capability setup state' contains in a way that would fully prepare an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 0% and the single parameter, operation_id, is not mentioned in the description. While the name and title ('Operation Id') make its role partially inferable, the description does not explicitly connect operation_id to the 'original request' mentioned in the text. The description should compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation, but does not do so.

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 clearly identifies a specific operation: reading durable capability setup state. It uses a concrete verb ('Read'), names the resource ('durable capability setup state'), and adds a temporal condition ('after the original request disappears') that helps distinguish this from related sibling tools like start_capability_setup, cancel_capability_setup, or list_capabilities.

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 phrase 'after the original request disappears' provides clear temporal context for when this tool is appropriate, distinguishing it as the way to retrieve state when the original asynchronous request context is no longer available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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