agent_list_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List your registered capabilities' but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, what happens if no capabilities exist, whether authentication beyond the api_key is required, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely short (2 words of substance) and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, but the extreme brevity slightly reduces clarity. For such a simple tool, it is reasonable, though it could benefit from a bit more context without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It specifies the action and resource, but does not explain what 'capabilities' are, the response format, or behavior when the list is empty. It could be improved but is not critically incomplete.

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 single parameter api_key is fully described in the input schema ('Agent API key'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'List your registered capabilities' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (capabilities) with a clear scope (your registered). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_register_capability, agent_search_capabilities, and agent_delete_capability, which have different actions.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_search_capabilities or agent_delete_capability. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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