coeus_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Truthful live inventory' adds meaningful context about freshness and accuracy, but it does not disclose side effects, output format, error behavior, or whether any runtime state is queried. For a simple zero-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the key content categories are listed compactly.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the content domains and implies live, truthful data. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape would strengthen completeness, but the absence does not block correct invocation.

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 and the schema is already complete at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the inventory categories (tools, providers, capability packs, experimental flags), which tells the agent what the response will cover.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a clear resource: a live inventory of tools, providers, capability packs, and experimental flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coeus_list_models (models only) and coeus_runtime_diagnostics (diagnostics only).

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The phrase 'live inventory' implies current-state discovery, but there is no stated exclusion or comparison such as 'use this when you need a full capability list rather than health or diagnostics.'

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