capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states what the tool reports: server abilities, deliberate non-abilities, and external-tool discovery. The verb 'report' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the mention of deliberate exclusion adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and then adds two meaningful specifications: deliberate exclusions and external tool discovery. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

As a parameterless, read-only meta-tool with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. It conveys the tool's scope and its unique role among the siblings, and the output schema can define the return structure.

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 is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on the output's subject matter rather than inputs, matching the baseline expected for a parameterless tool.

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 action—'Report'—and a clear resource: the server's capabilities, including deliberate exclusions and discovered external tools. This strongly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are all concrete EDA/PCB operations rather than a meta-level discovery tool.

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 makes it evident this is a discovery tool for understanding server capabilities, which clearly implies it should be used before acting on specific domain tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this first,' so it stops short of a perfect score, but the context is unmistakable.

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