capabilities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that it returns configuration flags and the default server ID, and explicitly excludes API tokens or other secrets, which is behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first states the action and timing, the second states key return scope and the security boundary. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a no-argument discovery tool.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields. It gives enough context to use the tool correctly as a preflight check, though 'Wisp operation classes' could be clearer for an agent unfamiliar with that term.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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: inspect which Wisp operation classes are enabled. It also frames the tool as a preflight discovery step before choosing a management tool, though it does not name specific siblings to differentiate from.

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 'before choosing a management tool' gives clear timing and context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly list when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the preflight role is plain.

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