Get Server Capabilities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds significant context about what the tool returns (identity, build, HGNC release, tool list, signatures, etc.) and the difference between summary and full detail. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear topic sentence, detailed breakdown of detail levels, a usage hint, and a signature. It is fairly concise given the amount of information, though slightly verbose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and usage. It mentions error taxonomy and limits, and the usage hint is valuable. No gaps evident for a capabilities discovery tool.

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% with a description for the 'detail' parameter. The description goes further by explaining in natural language what each value returns (e.g., 'light: identity/build/HGNC release...' vs. 'adds vocabularies...'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 the 'hgnc-link discovery surface' and details what each detail level includes. It distinguishes from sibling tools (gene queries, symbol resolution) by being about server metadata and capabilities.

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?

It explicitly advises to 'Call this first in a cold session', providing clear context for when to use. It also mentions an alternative source ('hgnc://tools / hgnc://capabilities'). However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use.

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