List PhishFort Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns supported operations and mutation approval requirements, providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. 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?

The description is a single sentence that clearly and directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized and 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but declared), the description adequately covers the tool's function. It names the two key outputs (operations and mutation approval requirements), which is sufficient for a listing tool.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It correctly states what the tool does without parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool lists supported PhishFort MCP operations and mutation approval requirements. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('capabilities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations.

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 implies usage for discovering available operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tool duplicates this function, so no conflict, but the description could be more explicit about its role.

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