scf_list_capabilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds conceptual domain context ('Capabilities map to systems and evidence') but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, filtering, ordering, response shape, or any other runtime behavior beyond simply listing.

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 two concise sentences with the action front-loaded in the first sentence and a useful domain clarification in the second. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the natural verb usage.

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 simple read-only list operation with one well-documented required parameter, the description is largely adequate. It lacks explicit output shape or pagination details, but the combination of tool name, description, and schema provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool successfully.

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 schema already fully documents the single org_id parameter, including its UUID format and the guidance to obtain it from scf_list_organizations. The description restates the organization scope but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List an organization's capabilities.' It also clarifies what capabilities are by explaining they map to systems and evidence. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like scf_list_capability_themes, but the resource name and explanation make the purpose clear.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving capability information for an organization, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools such as scf_list_capability_themes or scf_list_system_catalog. Usage context is only implied through the domain definition.

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