Forum capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the specific capabilities probed and the fact that the response explains what is missing and what would enable it. It does not mention cost or latency of probing, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no filler. The capability list comes first and the routing guidance second, which is the correct front-loading for a diagnostic 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so at a useful level: per-feature usability plus an explanation of what is missing and what would enable it. Slightly more detail on the response shape (e.g. per-feature status fields) would make it fully self-contained.

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?

Only one parameter (refresh) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the caching behavior and the post-plugin-install use case. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (forum features this server can use), then enumerates exactly what is probed: reachability, authentication, full-text search, the Q&A plugin, and the Shotef triage plugin. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_forum or get_triage_status, which consume features rather than diagnose them.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: call it first when a result looks thin, or when a tool reports a feature as unavailable. That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when not to bother (e.g. after a successful call) or name alternative diagnostics.

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