get_capabilities

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (JSON string) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, whether it might be expensive, or if authentication is needed. For a simple get operation, this is minimally acceptable but could be improved by noting safety and lack of side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the main function, plus structured Args/Returns. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy or filler. Ideal for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 the tool's simplicity (single required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description provides the core information. However, lack of usage context and no mention of what 'capabilities' includes (e.g., features, options) leaves room for improvement. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'project_path' by specifying it is an absolute path to the Dart project root. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this compensates well. However, additional details about path format (e.g., required trailing slash) would elevate it to a 5.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get LSP server capabilities for a project. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LSP server capabilities'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., find_references, get_diagnostics) which focus on specific LSP features rather than overall capabilities.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for calling it. For example, it could mention that this tool is useful for discovering available server features before using other LSP tools.

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