get_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only introspection action ('Describe') with no side effects, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose the output format, whether any configuration or permissions are needed, or what exactly will be listed in 'what it supports'. The behavior is not contradictory, just underexplained.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The action ('Describe the configured adapter') is front-loaded, and the second clause ('what it supports') adds relevant scope without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It states the tool's purpose but leaves the return value's shape and the precise extent of 'supports' unspecified. An agent could call the tool and be surprised by the response structure, but for a simple introspection call this is an acceptable gap rather than a fatal one.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the rubric, zero parameters earn a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 clear verb ('Describe') and resource ('configured adapter and what it supports'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_engagements and propose_adjustment, which clearly concern different resources. However, the phrase 'what it supports' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about the kind of capabilities being described.

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 should be used to inspect adapter capabilities, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are unrelated enough that confusion is unlikely, but the lack of any 'use this when' statement leaves the guidance at the level of implication.

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