What Shapeless can do

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: planned entries explain how to achieve the outcome today and expose a 'want door', while routed-but-unshipped entries return 501. The auth scope requirement is also disclosed.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the planned-vs-live distinction and auth note. The phrasing 'its page' and 'want door' is slightly cryptic jargon that costs a bit of clarity, but little is wasted.

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 and no parameters, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the key behavioral distinction (planned vs shipped entries) plus auth. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The 'read scope' note is an auth prerequisite rather than a parameter, so it doesn't add or detract 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 description states a clear resource and scope: it enumerates everything Shapeless supports (live or planned) and, for each, the REST routes, MCP tools and CLI lines. The listing verb is only implied rather than stated, and the closest sibling (capabilities_want) is gestured at via the cryptic 'want door' rather than named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can guess this is a discovery/catalog tool. There is no explicit 'use this when' or routing to siblings like capabilities_want or tools_list, though the auth note ('Needs the read scope'; 'over REST it needs no key') is a helpful precondition.

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