get_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding length, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 0 parameters and an output schema (not provided), the description need not detail return values, but it is vague. It does not explain what 'capabilities' entails or how the output is structured. For a discovery tool, more context would help an agent understand what to expect.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously). The description adds value by enumerating the categories of information returned (objects, actions, solvers, outputs), providing meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this is met.

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 'Describe supported objects, actions, solvers, and outputs' clearly indicates the tool returns a description of capabilities. It provides a verb ('describe') and a resource ('supported objects, actions, solvers, and outputs'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools that modify or query specific items.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for initialization or discovery before using add_action or similar tools. There is no explicit context for using it.

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