twilize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool describes a capability and its support tier, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 2 undocumented required parameters, and a sibling tool ('list_capabilities') that might overlap in function, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks usage context and parameter guidance needed for effective tool selection.

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 0%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't explain what 'kind' and 'name' refer to, their expected values, or how they identify a capability. With 2 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('one declared capability and its support tier'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'list_capabilities', which appears to list multiple capabilities rather than describe a single one.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_capabilities'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to know the capability kind and name beforehand, or when detailed information about a specific capability is required.

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