Get Server Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what the summary includes (injection capabilities and token estimation settings) and why it would be used (diagnostics, feature verification). No contradictions.

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, with the main action and scope in the first sentence and a brief use case in the second. No fluff or redundancy; every word 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?

Given the zero parameters, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The simplicity is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document beyond schema, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return a summary') and names the exact resource ('LoreDocs server's injection capabilities and token estimation settings'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like vault_get_injection_cap and vault_estimate_tokens by presenting a consolidated overview rather than a specific value.

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?

The description states it is 'Useful for diagnosing injection behavior or verifying which features are active,' which gives clear context for when to call it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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