get_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It accurately describes the tool's behavior as listing tool names, which is non-destructive and straightforward. No additional behavioral traits need to be disclosed for this simple tool.

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 a single sentence of nine words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple and the description is sufficient to understand its purpose. Although an output schema exists, the description clearly states it returns tool names, which is adequate. No additional details are needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List', the resource 'available tool names', and the scope 'in this MCP server', making it clear what the tool does. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are the tools being listed.

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 description clearly indicates the tool's purpose, and in context with sibling tools, it is obvious that this tool is for discovering available tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it, though such guidance is not critical given its meta-tool nature.

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