get_capabilities

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so credit goes to the extra behavioral context: the description warns that a beta build reports variant 'Beta' and edition 'unknown' because the edition is unreadable, and that callers should trust `features` instead. That is a genuinely useful quirk disclosure beyond the annotations, though no rate limits or call-order constraints are mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the primary payload and followed by a targeted caveat about beta builds. The enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; the second sentence exists specifically to prevent a misread of the edition field.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, which it does by listing the reported fields and the bridge-command listing. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only a minor gap around how the feature probe values should be interpreted.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument introspection call and does not invent parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it reports: script version/build id, Live version and variant, unavailable features, feature probes, and bridge commands. It is distinct from siblings like get_health or get_properties, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the caveat 'rely on `features`, never on the edition' tells the agent how to interpret and act on the output, and 'Also lists every bridge command' hints at discovery use. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance relative to get_health or get_properties.

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