moonray_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Describe' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which provides some behavioral clarity. However, it does not disclose return format, whether the call may be expensive, or any other side effects beyond the descriptive intent.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. Every element—scene types, backend, reports, controls—earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description gives a reasonable outline of what the call will tell the agent. However, it is short on context such as when this capability report is useful, how it relates to health/resource checks, or what form the output takes, leaving some ambiguity about integration into an agent's decision flow.

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 the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of what will be described (scene types, backend, reports, controls) adds useful context even though there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and a clear resource ('this build') and enumerates the content areas: scene types, backend, reports, and controls. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like moonray_health and moonray_resources because those target health and resources specifically, while this one covers general capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as moonray_health, moonray_resources, or inspect_scene. The description implies it is useful for understanding build capabilities, but it never states a condition or context that would help an agent select it over siblings.

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