get_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns all tool names grouped by category, shows auth status, and is faster than searching individually. It doesn't detail the output structure or any limitations, but the existence of an output schema likely covers return format. The auth-related context adds useful insight beyond a simple read operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives explicit usage guidance, the third adds behavioral detail (grouping, speed, auth). No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 meta-tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (tools, auth status, getting started), when to use it, and why it's beneficial (faster than searching). The output schema likely details the structure, so the description doesn't need to repeat return values. The context signals (output schema present) support this.

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 0 parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description mentions "single call" and "all tool names" which reinforces that no filtering or additional inputs are needed. Since there are no parameters, there is nothing more to explain about them, and the schema coverage is irrelevant here.

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 returns a full list of available tools, current auth status, and how to get started. It uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource, and clearly distinguishes itself from the domain-specific sibling tools (e.g., get_search_analytics, list_properties) by being a meta-capabilities 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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: "ALWAYS call this first when asked what tools are available, what this server can do, or how to get started." It also contrasts with searching individually, noting this is faster. This offers clear direction and implies the alternative, making it highly actionable.

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