describe_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the categories of information returned (operations, discovery filters, limits, write policy), which tells an agent this is a safe self-description rather than a mutation. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the policy is dynamic, or freshness of the described policy.

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 that enumerates exactly what is returned with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Combined with zero parameters and a clear enumeration of the described domains, the definition is essentially complete for a simple introspection tool; only explicit usage guidance is missing.

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 the schema-baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed since there is nothing to parameterize.

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 ('Describe') and enumerates the resource scope: hwlog operations, discovery filters, limits, and the current MCP write policy. This clearly separates it from the data-oriented siblings like query_logs or list_boots, which fetch logs rather than describe system capabilities. It stops short of naming siblings, but the distinction is self-evident.

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: the mention of 'current MCP write policy' hints that an agent should consult this before attempting writes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite guidance, and no stated alternative. An agent can infer it is a discovery/introspection call, but nothing in the text confirms it.

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