Get DOS target capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds specific behavioral context by listing what is reported (operations and screen formats) and emphasizes precision ('exactly'), which is valuable beyond the annotation. There is no mention of side effects, but readOnlyHint covers that aspect.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource. While it could include more detail about the target parameter, the concise phrasing is appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and leaves the target parameter unexplained, which are gaps in the overall completeness. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully self-contained for an agent.

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 input schema has one parameter 'target' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's role or behavior when null. The meaning of 'target' is left entirely to inference from the schema name, and no guidance is given on how it affects the capabilities 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 description clearly states the verb 'report' and the precise resource 'target operations and screen formats'. It is specific and easily distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_status or list_targets, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the phrase 'exactly which target operations and screen formats are supported' implies it is used for discovering capabilities before calling other operations, so the usage is somewhat implied rather than stated.

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