Inspect TiledMCP capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, ensuring the agent understands it's safe and side-effect-free. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (edit profile, threat model, etc.), which goes beyond annotations to clarify what 'capabilities' means.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action 'Returns'. Every word adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does. It explains the three categories of returned information in natural language, which complements the output schema.

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 per the calibration guidance, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. No additional parameter semantics needed as the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 what the tool does: it returns specific Tiled capabilities (edit profile, threat model, operational requirements, command-line adapters). The verb 'Returns' and the listed resources are precise. It distinguishes from siblings which are about specific operations like creating or previewing.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide usage context or exclusions. However, given the tool's purpose (inspecting capabilities) and the lack of similar siblings, it is minimally adequate. No guidance on when not to use it.

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