request_capability

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

Discloses that by default no data is transmitted (only a pre-filled URL), explains alternative posting behavior, rate limiting, and dedupe. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) are consistent and description adds critical behavioral context.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: purpose, usage guideline, behavior modes, rate limits, and writing advice in a few sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and critical usage constraint.

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 5 parameters (2 required), nested context object, and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, response modes, rate limits, and dedupe. Schema descriptions handle parameter details, so description completes the picture.

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 80%, and the description enriches parameter semantics by advising on how to write summaries and descriptions (e.g., 'One-line title...', 'What the user asked for...'). This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 it files a capability request for missing functionality, with specific examples (unsupported protocol, chain, token, missing tool). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the fallback when no tool exists.

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 says 'USE ONLY AFTER confirming no existing tool can accomplish the task.' Provides when-to-use, alternative approach, and details on behavior (GitHub URL vs direct post, rate limits, dedupe).

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