inspect_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is that output covers both implemented and unavailable features, which tells an agent that missing entries are meaningful rather than errors. It adds nothing about what a capability record contains or how it is scoped.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline: the one sentence is spent on a near-restatement instead of on scope or usage.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what a 'capability' is here and what the report looks like. It supplies neither, leaving the agent to guess at scope and result shape before calling an open-world inspection tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for anything 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 largely restates the tool name: 'inspect_capabilities' becomes 'Report implemented and unavailable features.' It never states whose capabilities are being inspected (the server itself, a connection, a plugin), which matters because siblings include inspect_connection, inspect_server, inspect_tailscale, and inspect_import_metadata.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling as an alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it before authenticate_server, after discover_server, or instead of inspect_connection.

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