request_capability

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that requests are aggregated into 'unmet-demand', implying it's non-actionable feedback, but does not confirm safety, auth needs, or what happens after submission. No mention of rate limits or confirmations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and its purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no superfluous content.

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 input tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the basic idea but omits expected return behavior, examples, and success indicators. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.

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 50% (only 'capability' has a description). The tool description merely echoes the schema's description of 'capability' without adding new meaning. The 'agentId' parameter is left unexplained. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 tool's purpose: requesting a capability for RadMail. The verb 'request' matches the name, and it explains that requests are aggregated into unmet demand. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'report_need', but the purpose is stated specifically enough.

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. Sibling tools like 'report_need' could be confused, but no differentiation or context is provided. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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