discover_capabilities

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It compensates by disclosing return value structure ('provider counts and top provider info'), but omits other behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded purpose ('Discover what capabilities are available') followed immediately by usage pattern and return value description.

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?

Adequate for a discovery tool with well-documented schema. Compensates for missing output_schema by describing return format. Minor gap: could note that all parameters are optional (required=0) to complete the contract.

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 100% ('Filter by capability domain', 'Search capabilities by text', etc.), establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal semantic context beyond mapping 'domain or text' to the search functionality already documented in schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Discover' and resource 'capabilities' with explicit scope (search by domain or text). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'find_tools' or 'resolve_capability' which may overlap in functionality.

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?

Implies usage through 'search by domain or text' and indicates return data structure, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like 'find_tools' or 'get_alternatives'.

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