enclave_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the tool does not probe a live enclave, implying a purely local, side-effect-free read. It also signals the results are "unverified" qualifications, which usefully warns against treating output as authoritative. It says nothing about permissions, cost, or freshness guarantees, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. It loses a point because the trailing clause is compressed into opaque terminology rather than plain language an agent can act on quickly.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive reporting tool this is close to adequate, and the no-probe constraint is the key safety fact. But with no output schema and no indication of what categories of capability are reported or how they are qualified, an agent cannot predict the response shape or decide whether this call answers its question.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty, closed object, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing a pure local report.

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+object ("Report local capabilities") is clear, but the second half, "explicit unverified qualification boundaries," is dense jargon that does not tell an agent what content actually comes back. It only implicitly contrasts with probing siblings like enclave_status and enclave_doctor rather than naming them, so disambiguation is left to inference.

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 clause "without probing a live enclave" implies the when-to-use condition: call this when you need capability information and must not touch a live enclave. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to map that condition onto enclave_status or enclave_doctor itself.

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