pangolinfo_capabilities

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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears the burden. Discloses that it's local with no backend call, cost 0 points, and returns a specific structure. No contradictions; all behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, don't use, returns, pairing, cost). However, it is slightly verbose; could streamline some phrasing without losing meaning. Still very effective.

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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure (version, locale, tools, workflows, tips). Parameter semantics fully covered. Context about cost and usage pairs is complete. Siblings are many but tool's unique role is clear.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'detail'. Description adds value by explaining the enum values ('summary' vs 'full') and their effects, including token size estimates. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 defines the tool as a self-introspection call that returns the full capability catalog, canonical workflows, and usage tips. It uses specific verbs ('get') and resources ('capability catalog') and distinguishes from siblings by being local and free, contrasting with tools/list for detailed descriptions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (first connection, user asks 'what can you do', capability audit before SOP planning) and when not to use (for full tool descriptions, for account balance). Also mentions pairing with deciding which tool to call next, providing clear guidance.

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