dashclaw_capabilities_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation that lists capabilities without side effects. The disclosure of return fields (IDs, names, health, risk) adds transparency. Could mention pagination or rate limits if applicable, but overall it is clear.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, usage guidance, and return information. Every sentence earns its place, and the key action ('List') is front-loaded. No verbose or redundant phrasing.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (IDs, names, health, risk levels). For a simple list tool, this is sufficient. Could optionally mention sorting or default ordering, but not necessary.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context by summarizing the filter capabilities (by category, risk level, search term). This enhances the schema alone, providing a cohesive overview.

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 ('List') and resource ('available capabilities registered in DashClaw'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dashclaw_invoke or dashclaw_guard. It also mentions what the output includes (IDs, names, health status, risk levels).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before invoking other capabilities. It also explains the filtering options. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, but given its unique purpose, this is not a major gap.

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