capability_get_self

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the 'active room' and that the profile is 'currently visible to peers', providing nuance beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations and explains the visibility semantics, but could go deeper into error scenarios or room membership requirements.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and what it does not do. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details and focuses on behavior, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('this agent's capability profile') within a clear scope ('in the active room'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capability_upsert_self and capability_set_availability by focusing on the read operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after room_join when choosing work or checking the profile currently visible to peers') and provides alternatives for other operations ('use capability_upsert_self to change profile fields or capability_set_availability for a status-only update'). This is clear and actionable.

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