get_capabilities

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds value by saying the response includes limitations and a recommended workflow, but it does not state whether the tool should be called before mutations or how current/authoritative the capability data is.

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 sentence with no filler, and the most important term ('Discover supported operations') is front-loaded. Every phrase maps to a concrete piece of returned information.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the main categories of returned information, though it could briefly clarify the response shape or call timing for an agent unfamiliar with the server.

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 no parameter semantics burden. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the schema is empty as expected.

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 'Discover' is specific, and the description enumerates the exact resources the tool surfaces: operations, limitations, version, configured paths, and recommended workflow. It is clearly a meta-capability endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the knowledge/search siblings.

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 phrase 'recommended workflow' hints that this tool should be used for orientation, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to call it, or how it relates to siblings such as read_knowledge or search_knowledge. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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