hcl_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description hints at a notion of an 'activation boundary' (a gating concept worth knowing) but never explains what that boundary means or how the result is shaped, leaving behavioral context thin.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the vagueness rather than resolving it.

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?

The structural side is simple (no params, output schema present, annotations complete), so the description only needs to orient the agent. It fails to do so fully because 'activation boundary' is unexplained jargon and the tool's relationship to hcl_backend_capabilities is unstated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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 verb 'Describe' is specific, but the resource is vague: 'verified capabilities' and 'the activation boundary' do not say capabilities of what, and the sibling hcl_backend_capabilities sounds like it covers a near-identical concern. An agent cannot confidently tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The presence of hcl_backend_capabilities and hcl_bridge_status makes the missing routing guidance a real gap.

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