capability_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful boundaries: results do not reveal concrete tool names, are descriptive only, and cannot enable anything — an important safety/permission property for an agent exploring capabilities. It stops short of describing result cardinality or failure modes, but the security posture is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the follow-up step and the limitation. No filler, though the middle sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing is the query semantics and any differentiation from the sibling 'search', which are the remaining gaps an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the query matches (name, keyword, substring), what an empty/default value returns, or whether it is free-text or pattern-based — exactly the case where the description must compensate.

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 verb ('Find') and object ('hidden capability families') are stated, but 'capability family' is opaque jargon that the description never defines. It hints at the purpose (discovering selectable profiles) without ever saying plainly what a returned profile is or does.

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 second sentence gives a concrete follow-up ('Select the returned profile when starting the server'), which implies the usage context, and the third sentence rules out a misuse (search alone cannot enable a tool). However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus the closely named sibling 'search', and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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