geo_capabilities

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses concrete outputs: the exact enable command, which optional API keys are configured, and where the response cache lives. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not capture, fully informing the agent of what to expect from the call.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then additional output details. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The structure guides the reader from what → when → what else, which is optimal for agent comprehension.

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 zero-parameter interface, safe annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the purpose, the trigger condition, and the expected outputs, leaving nothing an agent needs to decide whether and when to call it. No gaps are apparent.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't; it focuses on purpose and output, which 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List which geospatial toolsets are enabled and what else is available.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling geospatial tools, which perform specific operations; this tool is a meta-capability probe. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to invoke it: 'Call this when a capability seems to be missing, before telling the user something is impossible.' It also explains the rationale and what the tool returns (the exact command to enable a toolset), leaving no doubt about its appropriate use. No alternative tools are needed, but the condition is specific.

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