Tool Manifest

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the description carries minimal burden. The description accurately conveys a safe, read-only discovery operation with no side effects, fully consistent with annotations.

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, well-formed sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no input parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (as indicated in context), the description is completely adequate. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does without needing further elaboration.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description needs to add no parameter information. According to the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate 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 'Discover available tools and capabilities exposed by the server' clearly states the verb (Discover) and resource (tools and capabilities). It distinguishes from siblings, which are specific functional tools, by indicating this is a meta-tool for listing available capabilities.

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 implies usage context: an agent should use this tool to learn what other tools are available. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the simplicity of the tool makes the context clear. No exclusion guidance is needed given the tool's purpose.

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