Get capability

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Full detail' suggests a read-only retrieval, but the description never explicitly states that the operation does not modify data, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It is a simple get, so the lack of explicit safety disclosure is a minor gap, but still not fully transparent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full detail for one capability') and then enumerates the included content. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to define the input parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. It also does not state the read-only nature or any prerequisites. Given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'capability' parameter. It merely says 'one capability' without specifying whether it is a name, ID, slug, or another identifier, nor its format or valid values. This leaves the agent without enough information to construct a correct request.

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 retrieves 'full detail' for a capability, listing its operations, errors, webhooks, and recipes. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_operation (which targets a specific operation) and get_webhook_contract (which targets a webhook). The verb 'get' and resource 'capability' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when a comprehensive view of a single capability is needed, but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like get_operation or get_recipe, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The distinction is inferable from the name and sibling set, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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