get_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns a server-announced capability list, which implies a safe read-only introspection operation, but it does not describe return organization, error behavior, or scope. The presence of an output schema mitigates some of this gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words and useful parenthetical examples. Slightly cryptic due to the French wording and trailing ellipsis, but appropriately efficient for the tool's trivial scope.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter introspection tool, especially with an output schema documenting the return shape. However, the description leaves unclear how this relates to get_search_capabilities and when an agent should prefer one over the other, which is a meaningful gap given the large sibling set.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. Schema description coverage is vacuously 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 states the resource clearly ('capacités annoncées par le serveur' — capabilities announced by the server) with illustrative examples (watch, templates, workflows) that help an agent anticipate what to expect. The verb+resource mapping is specific, and the examples implicitly differentiate it from the narrower sibling get_search_capabilities, though the sibling is not named.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_search_capabilities, nor on typical use cases like checking feature availability before invoking template or workflow tools. The discovery purpose is implied by the name and examples but never made explicit.

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