Get server capabilities and auth status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds that the tool returns a catalog, access mode, and auth status while taking no arguments. It frames the tool as a safe first step, but does not describe potential edge cases or staleness of auth status; still, the extras are useful.

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?

Three sentences each serve a distinct purpose: describing the output, giving usage guidance, and noting the return payload plus lack of arguments. There is no fluff and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies all needed behavioral context. It even names the return elements, so an agent can decide to call it without opening the schema.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete and the description explicitly reinforces 'Takes no arguments.' This matches the baseline for parameter-free tools and leaves nothing ambiguous.

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: it lists every tool, the configured access mode, and auth status. This clearly differentiates it from data-oriented siblings like sites.list or analytics.query, marking it as a discovery tool.

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?

It explicitly says to call this first when unsure about available tools, whether the deployment is read-only, or whether the user is connected. This provides concrete triggers for use and implies it precedes other operations.

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