List Server Capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail: results are 'grouped by scope requirement.' However, the meaning of 'scope requirement' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about the output structure. The tool is inherently read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, though it is fairly obvious.

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, clear sentence that delivers all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. No word is wasted.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool lists and hints at the grouping structure. However, it could briefly mention that this is the canonical way to discover capabilities, and it might clarify what 'scope requirement' refers to, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema is fully covered (100%). The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain; the description's mention of grouping refers to output structure, not input semantics.

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's purpose: 'Lists all available tools, resources, and prompts that this server exposes.' It uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('available tools, resources, and prompts'). It also distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are domain-specific, by being a server introspection tool.

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 as a discovery mechanism but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool performs a similar discovery function, the lack of explicit 'when not to use' is acceptable, but the guidance is still only implied rather than clearly articulated.

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