stac_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is read-only (listing capabilities) and details the return structure. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify server state, but this is clear from context.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Tips, Example). The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and every section adds value. Minor redundancy in the returns section listing what's in the JSON.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (catalogs, collections, band mappings, spectral indices) and provides a typical workflow and example. It completely covers what an agent needs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the only parameter 'output_mode' with allowed values (json/text) and default, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List server capabilities: catalogs, collections, and band info.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., stac_search, stac_describe_scene) by being a top-level discovery tool.

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 advises calling this tool first, provides a typical workflow, and explains when to use it vs. other tools. This is exemplary guidance.

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