Get Capability Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond those by explaining the payload is static, that it should be loaded once and cached, and that the same JSON is exposed as a resource. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the payload contents are enumerated compactly, and the usage directive ('load once, then cache') is placed immediately after the purpose.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what is returned, enumerates its contents, states the expected usage pattern, and gives an alternative resource path. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and cache the result.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned payload contains, which is the closest analogue to parameter semantics for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns a single payload of every static capability, and it enumerates the major content categories (actions, vocabularies, RALE built-ins, presets, authoring rules, op directory, actionScriptAgentContract). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_action_types or get_action_schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: load once before authoring scripts, then cache. It also notes the same JSON is available as a resource URL, which helps an agent decide between fetching and using a cached resource. It doesn't contrast with specific sibling tools, but for a zero-parameter static bundle this is sufficient.

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