get_capability_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it elaborate on any side effects, authentication needs, or what 'trust boundaries' entails. Minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads its core function. It is efficient with no waste, earning the full score for conciseness.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description leaves key context unexplained. The 'four-tool diagnostic surface' is neither defined nor related to the sibling tools, and there is no guidance on when this tool is appropriate. The cryptic phrasing significantly reduces completeness.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Since 0 params baselines at 4, the description doesn't need to add anything, and it doesn't detract from the score.

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 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'the exact four-tool diagnostic surface and its trust boundaries,' which aligns with the tool name. However, the phrase 'four-tool diagnostic surface' is ambiguous without listing which four tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_msty_status or get_model_manifest. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context that would help an agent decide between this tool and its siblings.

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