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 behavioral burden. It usefully states that only enabled assistants are covered and that the response shape is {"ok": true, "capabilities": [...]}, but it does not discuss permissions, side effects, or whether disabled assistants are included or excluded beyond the word 'enabled'.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The return-value block is slightly redundant because an output schema exists, but it is still compact and does not waste much space.

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 simple no-parameter list tool, the description gives the action, scope, intended use, and return shape. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention related alternatives or when not to use this tool in favor of sibling discovery tools.

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 clarify. The empty schema is fully described by its structure, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'List all capabilities available across enabled assistants.' It clearly scopes the result to enabled assistants and distinguishes the capability resource from sibling resources such as assistants, providers, and tasks.

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 states a contextual use case: a lead agent can discover capability terms in order to pick an appropriate assistant. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_assistants or list_assistants, and it gives no exclusion criteria.

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