Get Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is fully covered without the description. The description adds one useful non-obvious detail — that results reflect the *effective enabled* surface, not just static support — but says nothing about whether that reflects auth/config, or about latency or caching.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key qualifier (effective enabled tool surface) is placed at the end where it gets emphasis, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters there are no input semantics to cover. The only shortfall is the absence of any prompt about when calling this is worthwhile, which leaves the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (machine-readable capability flags) with explicit scope: static feature support plus the effective enabled tool surface. Against a sibling set made up entirely of workspace/doc/content operations, this is unmistakably the server-introspection tool.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this to discover which features and tools are actually enabled. There is no explicit 'when to use' (e.g., before attempting a tool that may be gated), no exclusions, and no named alternative, so nothing is stated outright.

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