coros_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result is 'current' and includes operation names, input contracts, and confirmations, but it does not reveal response format, error behavior, or auth dependencies. That is useful but not richly behavioral.

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 trigger condition and followed by a compact summary of the returned data. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition or vague filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description covers when to call it and what it returns. The only minor gap is leaving 'stable compatibility bridge' unexplained)Skip; that ambiguity prevents a perfect completeness score.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema description coverage is 100% by default with an empty schema, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description need not add anything.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a COROS function is missing from the chat catalog or before calling the stable compatibility bridge. It clearly identifies the resource as current read/write operation names, input contracts, and required confirmations, distinguishing it from COROS operation tools and other 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 gives explicit conditions for use: when a function is missing or before calling the stable compatibility bridge. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the trigger conditions are concrete and contextual enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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