What this server can observe

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lowered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what information the report exposes — including per-tool safety classes and current redaction/retention settings — which tells the agent this is a discovery/authorization-check step. It does not describe output format or size, but the content disclosure is substantive.

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, front-loaded with the noun phrase 'Machine-readable capability report' and the contents listed before the call-to-action. Dense but every clause carries information; the mid-sentence inventory is slightly list-heavy but not padded.

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, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does, specifying collectors, tool safety classes, observability boundaries, and configuration. With zero parameters and annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-server query and adds no misleading parameter guidance.

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 a specific artifact (a machine-readable capability report) and enumerates its contents: active collectors, per-tool safety class, observability limits, and redaction/dashboard/retention configuration. No sibling tool in the list returns this meta-level inventory, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the diagnostic getters (get_logs, get_frames, diagnose_runtime, etc.).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Read this before attempting an operation that may not be supported.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but for a self-describing capability tool no meaningful alternative exists.

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