get_capabilities

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It does add useful content scope by naming the returned facts, but since an output schema exists that already documents the response shape, this disclosure is partly redundant and adds only moderate behavioral value.

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 short fragments, zero filler, and the payload summary is front-loaded ahead of the call-order advice. 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?

With rich annotations, a full output schema, and no parameters, this simple discovery tool needs little more than what is given. The description tells the agent what facts it returns and when to reach for it, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not misleadingly imply any inputs.

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 enumerates the specific payload of the tool: auth status, scope, write access, history coverage, and the tool list. That is concrete enough for an agent to know this is a capabilities/diagnostics probe rather than a data-query tool. It does not name a sibling it overlaps with, but its role is distinctive among the query-oriented siblings.

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?

"Call this first when unsure" gives an explicit trigger condition and a preferred ordering relative to the rest of the toolset. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or named alternatives, but the guidance is actionable as written.

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