capabilities

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

No annotations, so the description bears full disclosure burden; 'Live' hints at a real-time query of the running server but it never states that the server must be started, whether the call is read-only/cheap, or what happens if the server is down. For a zero-risk read tool this is tolerable but thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every listed item is a payload field an agent would care about.

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 output schema, the description does list the returned categories, which covers most of the return-value burden. It remains ambiguous about the runtime precondition (server started) and its relationship to server_status.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the zero-arg schema. Baseline applies.

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?

Names a specific resource ('live server capabilities') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (model, samplers/schedulers, defaults, limits, upscale availability), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling server_status, which plausibly returns overlapping information.

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 on when to call this versus server_status or the profile tools, and no stated prerequisites. The intended use (discovery before generate_image) is only implied by the field list.

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