Get Server Capabilities

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), but the description adds behavioral details: the content of each detail level and the fact that it serves as an entry point for discovery, which goes beyond mere annotation replication.

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 information-dense but well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose, then detailing levels. The 'Signature:' line is slightly redundant with schema but not harmful. Could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 thoroughly covers return content for both detail levels, mentions alternative discovery methods, and provides session context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to understand and use the 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?

While schema provides enum descriptions, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains what 'summary' and 'full' return (e.g., identity, tool list, vocabularies), significantly enhancing utility beyond the schema's terse 'summary (default, light) or full (adds vocabularies).'

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 mgi-link discovery surface, specifying two detail levels (summary and full) and their contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are primarily query tools for markers, phenotypes, etc.

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 instructs to call this first in a cold session or read mgi://tools / mgi://capabilities, providing clear when-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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