postscript_capabilities

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

No annotations are present, and the description implies a read-only reporting operation without explicitly stating side effects or safety. It describes what information is reported but not behavioral guarantees like no modification or cost implications, leaving some burden on the agent to infer safety.

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 concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and the key reported items. No fluff or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the key information returned (Ghostscript availability, operator count, PSlib index/reference corpus status) and even mentions guidance on building if missing. It does not specify the exact format or data types, but for a simple status report this is reasonably 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to describe. The description correctly focuses on the report content, and no additional parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 server capabilities, specifically Ghostscript availability, operator count, PSlib index and reference corpus status. This is a distinct purpose from sibling tools like lookup, search, or render.

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?

It explicitly mentions 'for setup/debugging', giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the setup/debugging framing is sufficient guidance for when this status tool is appropriate.

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