Runtime Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'stable' which aligns with idempotency, and mentions 'active tool list' giving some context on output. However, it does not elaborate on what the contract contains or any operational nuances, so it only partially supplements the 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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no filler or redundancy; 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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic idea of what is returned (contract and tool list) but lacks detail on the structure or content of the contract. Given that the tool likely serves as a discovery mechanism, more detail on output format would be helpful. However, the annotations cover safety and the tool is low-complexity, so the description is minimally adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention 'caller' or 'response_format' at all. The parameter names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory (caller identifies the runtime, response_format chooses format), but the description offers no additional meaning, leaving the agent to rely solely on naming conventions. This is a notable gap.

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 returns a 'stable cross-review runtime capability contract and active tool list'. The verb 'return' with the specific resource distinguishes it from session_* and other sibling tools that focus on session operations or server info. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_info or probe_peers. The description simply states what it does without explaining context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given many sibling tools.

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