list_capability_bindings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but not contradictory. However, it adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining what a binding is ('pairs a provider profile with credentials/config and is what makes capabilities executable') and listing the return fields (binding_id, provider_id, profile_id, scope, execution_owner, status). This enhances transparency about what the operation returns and its conceptual role.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides context and alternatives efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, and return fields without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (field list), how to filter (optional parameters), and when to use it relative to siblings. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description only reiterates that results can be 'optionally narrowed by provider_id or scope', which does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb (List), resource (capability bindings), and scope (caller's organization), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming create_capability_binding, test_capability_binding, and list_capabilities. The agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 provides when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives and their purposes: use create_capability_binding to add one, test_capability_binding to verify one, and list_capabilities to browse what they expose. It also describes optional narrowing by provider_id or scope, giving clear context for usage.

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