segnals_get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires an API key and lists capabilities and scopes, but it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two clear sentences plus an example call. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose, usage, and prerequisite. However, it could be slightly improved by noting that the output will list tool names and scopes, but the simplistic nature of the tool makes this acceptable.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 lists all available Segnals MCP tools and their required scopes. It uses a specific verb 'list' and a clear resource 'available Segnals MCP tools', distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions rather than providing an inventory.

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 explicitly states to use this tool to understand what actions are possible with the current API key, and notes that any valid API key is required. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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