get_capabilities

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes the tool as returning a list of tools grouped by category and indicates auth status, with no side effects or destructive actions mentioned. This is complete for a read-only discovery tool.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, usage guidance, return format, and value proposition. No redundant or vague statements.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear output schema), the description provides all essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it benefits the agent. It is complete for effective invocation.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no param-specific info, which is fine.

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 it returns a full list of tools, auth status, and getting-started info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., add_site, inspect_url_enhanced) by being the meta-tool that lists all available tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to call it ('when asked what tools are available, what this server can do, or how to get started') and emphasizes calling it first. It also provides a rationale ('faster than searching individually'), effectively guiding the agent's decision-making.

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