Capability-Bundles listen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the conceptual context that bundles group local MCP servers into task categories, which helps interpret results, but it does not disclose mechanics like whether it scans the filesystem or depends on configuration paths.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, and it front-loads the key concept of grouping MCP servers. It loses a point because the verb choice is slightly inconsistent with the tool's listing function, which could confuse.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of bundle names, associated servers, or metadata). While the examples of bundle types give some orientation, the description is incomplete for a list operation without output schema or usage context.

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 description coverage is 100% for the two optional parameters (mcpRoot, bundleConfigPath), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no extra meaning or usage details about these parameters, maintaining the baseline.

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 names the resource (capability bundles) and gives concrete examples (Software, Filesystem, Automation, Control Plane), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools. However, the verb 'gruppiert' (groups) does not directly say 'list' or 'shows', so the operation is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_stacks or list_profiles. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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