capability_consider

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 10-minute cache window and the degradation path during registry outages (falls back to 'implement it yourself' advice). It stops short of saying whether the call has any side effects or what latency/cost to expect, which is the main remaining gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage timing, then operational caveats, then the sibling pointer. No sentence is padding and each adds a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and the description still flags that results include local verification status plus the caching/failure behavior. The only real omission is the `limit` parameter, which matters for a tool that surfaces ranked suggestions.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. "Given a subtask description" usefully frames the `task` parameter as a subtask rather than a whole task, but the `limit` parameter (default 5) is never mentioned in the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: suggest existing capabilities from the official MCP Registry for a given subtask, with local verification status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling capability_search (raw candidate lists), so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

"Call while decomposing a task, before implementing anything yourself" gives a concrete lifecycle point, and "Use capability_search for raw candidate lists" names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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