get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether this operation has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. However, the tool is likely read-only and simple; the description is minimally adequate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and specifies three categories of information. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description should explain what is returned. It lists three components but lacks specifics (e.g., format of config status, how credential status is indicated). For a simple tool, this might be sufficient, but more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies.

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 states the function (Returns) and the resources (available tools, team config status, credential status). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (setup_team, sprint_retro, sprint_review) by being a read-only information tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that it is a diagnostic tool to be called before other operations, nor does it mention any disclaimers. Sibling tools have different purposes, so differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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