What this workspace supports

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the full required scopes list, the required OAuth scope, the 'redacted' data sensitivity level, and that idempotency keys are not required. It stops short of describing rate limits or response behavior, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by clearly delimited metadata lines (operation, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, override). It is compact and every line carries information, though the terse label-value formatting is more machine-scannable than prose-fluent.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the relevant call-time concerns: auth scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, and workspace override. For a zero-required-parameter read-only discovery tool this is close to complete, with only usage routing left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that both parameters override the default workspace configured by the environment. That context about default behavior is not present in the schema's 'Optional Luca workspace id override' text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Describe Luca's public API capabilities, scopes, and boundaries.' No sibling tool offers a capabilities/discovery function, so an agent can distinguish it immediately, and the underlying operation (GET /api/capabilities) reinforces the read-only discovery purpose.

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?

Usage is implied (a capabilities/introspection call) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to the many sibling tools. The only directive, 'Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace,' is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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