rt_check_capabilities

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

Without annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits by listing what it flags but fails to describe the output format, side effects, or whether it modifies server state. The non-destructive nature is implied but not explicit.

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 two sentences and is concise, but could be more front-loaded with key information. It wastes little space.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value but does not. It also lacks context on parameter selection (e.g., stdio vs HTTP transport), though the schema covers that. Somewhat incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'MCP server capabilities advertised during initialization', and lists specific flags (experimental features, dynamic changes, logging). This differentiates it from sibling tools like rt_check_auth or rt_check_http_security.

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 for checking capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or comparison with other tools is given.

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