get_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that no external model is called, which is a key behavioral detail that indicates a local, side-effect-free operation. This goes beyond a simple 'gets capabilities' and helps the agent understand the tool's safety and performance profile.

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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does and its key behavioral trait (no external call). The sibling tools are all unrelated, making this tool's purpose stand out. No additional detail is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 there is no need for parameter explanation. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('local worker capabilities'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without calling the external model'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from sibling patch-related tools.

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 phrase 'without calling the external model' implies a lightweight, local check that can be used to avoid external calls. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Sibling tools are all patch operations, so the use case is sufficiently clear.

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