get_capabilities

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The word 'truthful' hints that results reflect actual backend probing rather than declared support, which is meaningful, but the description says nothing about cost, latency, caching, or whether the probe has side effects on the backend.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for the tool's scope. It is compact but borders on under-specification rather than wasting words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still leaves the agent without usage context and without any explanation of the odd parameter object. For a tool whose whole purpose is to inform command-selection decisions, the missing guidance about what to do with the result is a real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter whose schema is a generic mutation scaffold (dry_run, confirm_delete, expected_revision) that is confusing on a read-only tool. The description does not clarify what the request object means, whether it can be empty, or that confirm_delete/expected_revision are irrelevant here.

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 'return' plus the resource 'per-command backend capability status' gives a rough idea, but 'capability status' is undefined (declared support vs. live probe result) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_server_info or doctor, which likely report overlapping backend state.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of which questions this answers, no mention of when to prefer doctor or get_server_info, and no preconditions. The agent must guess whether to call this before attempting a command.

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