list_supported_questions

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

The phrase 'can and can't answer' usefully reveals that the tool covers both supported and unsupported questions, which goes beyond the name. However, with no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the output format.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no filler. The dash creates a clear appositive, and every word contributes meaning, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the vague phrasing and lack of usage guidance make it only minimally complete for an agent to understand when and why to call this tool.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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's 'governed capability set' is vague and does not explicitly state that the tool lists supported questions, but the tool name makes the function clear. It does differentiate from sibling data-retrieval tools by focusing on system capabilities rather than specific metrics.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about discovering capabilities before querying or any comparison with the sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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