get_server_capabilities

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

No annotations exist, but description fully discloses behavior: returns capability map based on server initialization, classifies tools, and requires start_lsp. No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states core purpose, second adds usage context and prerequisite. No wasted words, well 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 tool without output schema, the description completely covers purpose, usage motivation, and prerequisite. No gaps.

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?

No parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'language server's capability map', and explicitly says it classifies tools as supported/unsupported. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are actual LSP operations.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this tool before calling others to avoid round trips on unsupported features. Gives concrete examples like type_hierarchy and inlay_hints, and states the prerequisite of calling start_lsp first.

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