request_capability

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

Discloses key behaviors: default action returns a URL without transmitting data, optionally posts to an endpoint if configured, and imposes rate limits (30s, 3/hr, 10/day, 7-day dedupe). The description adds value beyond annotations, though the openWorldHint annotation might slightly clash with the 'no data transmitted' default.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and usage rule. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage condition, behavioral caveat, and advice for summaries.

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) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and some parameter advice. It lacks explicit return-value details but compensates with rate-limit transparency and the URL behavior explanation.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, just a general plea for clear summaries. It doesn't compensate for the 20% uncovered parameter information.

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: filing a capability request for missing features in the vaultpilot-mcp GitHub repo. It uses a specific verb ('file') and resource ('GitHub repository'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for unsupported actions that no existing tool can handle.

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 instructs to use only after confirming no existing tool works, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also hints at alternatives by mentioning checking existing tools first.

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