mavforge_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it explicitly states no vehicle contact and previews the per-operation metadata returned (permission, modification status, availability vs. planned), which helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Two tight sentences: the primary purpose and returned attributes come first, followed by the important safety/scoping caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it appropriately focuses on what the list contains and that no vehicle is contacted. It could be slightly stronger by stating how this discovery tool relates to the executable operation tools, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter call.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no further semantic explanation. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs, which is appropriate for a parameterless discovery call.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (MAVForge operations), and names the three attributes returned (required permission, vehicle modification, availability). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like params_list or diagnose, so an agent must infer that this is the capability-discovery tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for learning what operations exist and their constraints. 'Does not contact the vehicle' hints at when it is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule or named alternative for querying live vehicle/parameter state.

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