get_capability_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about durability ('durable') and the timing ('after the original request disappears'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides context that the state persists beyond the original request, aiding the agent's mental model.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and an important contextual detail. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds meaningful 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has a full output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key context of durability and timing, which is essential for correct usage. It could be slightly more explicit about what the state contains or the implication if called before disappearance, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description does not mention the 'operation_id' parameter or explain how it relates to the 'original request'. While the parameter name and title are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially since it uses the phrase 'original request' without linking it to the parameter.

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 states the tool reads durable capability setup state, with a specific verb 'Read' and a specific resource 'capability setup state'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_capability_setup' and 'cancel_capability_setup' by focusing on reading, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The phrase 'after the original request disappears' adds temporal context but leaves some ambiguity about what exactly the state contains.

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 provides clear context: use this tool after the original request disappears, implying it is for retrieving persisted setup state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the temporal condition is a useful guideline. Sibling tools like 'get_operation_window' or 'get_process_snapshot' are not referenced, so the guidance is moderate.

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