pbi_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It reveals this is an informational, read-only style query ('consultarla', 'dice si...') and details the specific categories of state it reports, such as live layer availability and .pbip write capability. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but that is strongly implied and acceptable for a capabilities inspection tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first line immediately conveys the tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third adds specific covered capabilities. Every sentence earns its place, with 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?

Given that this is a zero-parameter capability query with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it reports, why it exists, and when to use it. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description is complete without being verbose.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed because there is nothing to explain.

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 what the tool does: report what can and cannot be done right now, with reasons. It distinguishes itself from the many task-specific sibling tools by framing itself as a pre-planning capability check covering live layer availability, .pbip writability, and engine-version-dependent features. The verb and resource are specific and meaningful.

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 says 'Un agente debería consultarla antes de planificar' (an agent should consult it before planning), giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a unique capability-introspection tool.

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