Report active capabilities

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the specific information reported (active layers, callable tools, autonomy budget) and reinforces that it is safe to call upfront.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the outputs, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has a simple purpose, full schema coverage, informative annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it reports. It is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'cwd' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reports which DiffGate layers are active, which tools are callable, and the agent autonomy budget. It uses specific verbs ('Report') and resources ('active capabilities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze, check, review, explain, or provide feedback.

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 explicitly advises calling the tool upfront to discover available capabilities instead of discovering them via thrown errors. This provides a clear usage directive and implies an alternative (error-driven discovery), which is effective guidance.

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