get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful non-obvious behavior: profile confidence levels, the caveat that 'guide' is decoded from the programming guide and not confirmed on hardware, restriction of unverified features below 'verified', and the null behavior of 'options'. It could still explicitly state that it is read-only and does not modify device state.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by dense caveats. Every sentence contributes information, though the phrase 'Below verified, unverified features are restricted' is awkward and could have been worded more clearly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description makes a reasonable effort to explain the return content and edge cases such as null options and unverified feature restrictions. It does not specify the exact response structure, but for a parameterless capability query this is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results.

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. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of returned capability fields, such as confidence, options, and restrictions, which is more useful than the empty input schema.

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+resource: 'Return the features available on the connected device' and gives examples like channel count and supported features. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as get_state or get_acquisition_state.

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?

Implies the tool is used to discover device capabilities after connecting, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no clearly overlapping siblings, so the omission is not fatal, but the usage decision is left mostly to the agent.

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