List supported features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the categories of information returned, which is real content rather than tautology, but it says nothing about side-effect freedom, whether the answer is static or environment-dependent, or how the result is structured (and there is no output schema to fall back on).

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; every clause names a distinct category of supported capability. Appropriate size for a zero-argument tool.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema informational tool, the sentence effectively doubles as a return-value summary, which is largely sufficient. It could be tightened only by stating when to call it relative to the spec-analysis and server-generation siblings.

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 baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing further for the description to clarify.

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 a concrete resource set (input formats, auth schemes, transports, limits), so an agent knows this is a capability/introspection tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools (analyze_spec, generate_mcp_server, extend_mcp_server), leaving the boundary between 'report capabilities' and 'analyze a spec' to inference.

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 guess this is the tool to call to discover what the server supports, but there is no explicit trigger, no ordering guidance (e.g., call before generate_mcp_server), and no statement of when a sibling is the better choice.

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