her_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output modes ('json' default or 'text'), what is returned (all available tools, sources, spatial references, LLM guidance), and the practical implication of being a startup call. For a low-risk read-only tool, this is sufficient transparency without being verbose.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, Args, Returns, Tips) and is appropriately sized for a capabilities tool. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'complete information' and 'Complete capability listing' both appear), but overall every sentence contributes useful 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value ('Complete capability listing with LLM guidance') and provides usage context. For a simple one-parameter meta-tool, this is adequate; it could be slightly more detailed about the structure of the 'text' output, but overall it is complete.

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 only lists output_mode with a type and default, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by stating 'Response format — "json" (default) or "text"', adding the accepted values that the schema does not enumerate. This is strong parameter-level guidance.

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 opens with 'List full server capabilities: sources, tools, and supported queries,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this meta-tool from the data-query siblings (e.g., her_search_monuments, her_get_monument) by explaining it provides an overview of the server rather than domain-specific lookups.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section explicitly instructs 'Call this once at the start of a session to understand what tools are available and how to use them effectively,' providing clear situational guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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