What this server can do

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds useful discovery context about the three categories of information returned. It does not describe the response's shape or ordering, but for a no-argument introspection call the added behavioral value is solid.

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, the substantive capability list first and the invocation guidance second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct piece of returned information or a call trigger.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by enumerating the three categories. It stops short of describing the response structure (e.g., how open projects are listed), which is a minor gap for an agent deciding whether to rely on this call.

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. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a self-contained no-argument call.

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 ('Report') and resource ('what this server supports'), then enumerates exactly what is covered: readable/writable file formats, Python codec availability for Pivot files, and currently open projects. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like project_describe or figure_list, which operate on a specific object rather than server-wide capabilities.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first when you do not know what the project looks like yet', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling (e.g., project_describe) as the alternative for the case where you do know the project, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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