List LinkedIn Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds the additional context that it reports per-capability runtime policy enablement. This is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 a single concise sentence that starts with the verb and resource, then immediately states the key output detail. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. The annotations handle safety, and the output schema handles return values, so no additional context is needed.

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 the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior.

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 identifies the action (List), the resource (installed capabilities), and the specific output (whether runtime policy enables each one). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which target posts, jobs, people, etc.

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 implies that this tool is used to check the availability and enablement of capabilities, making its usage context clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough for correct selection.

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