os_mcp_descriptor

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, but for a read-only, idempotent introspection tool the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise without being bloated, even though the brevity sacrifices some explanatory context.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden on the description, and this is a simple introspective tool. However, the meaning of 'tool search configuration' is left unexplained, and there is no guidance about when to invoke this tool relative to the many sibling descriptor tools.

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 schema already gives clear descriptions for category and includeTools, and the tool parameter is a const, so the parameter semantics are mostly carried by the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with 67% schema coverage and simple optional parameters, that is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and names two concrete resources: server capabilities and tool search configuration, so it is not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling descriptor tools such as os_offline_descriptor or os_route_descriptor, and 'tool search configuration' is somewhat under-specified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer one of the other descriptor tools instead. The description does not state whether this should be called first for capability discovery or how it relates to the other os_mcp_* tools.

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