get_mcp_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses performance (O(1)) and the read-only nature through the word 'probe.' It also lists exactly what data is returned. However, 'surface flags' is ambiguous, and there is no explicit statement about side effects or auth requirements, but the probe framing implies safety.

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 two sentences long with no redundancy. The first sentence defines the function, and the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It lacks details about response format or error conditions, but these are not critical for a lightweight probe. The mention of the blop://health resource adds useful context.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description focuses on what the tool returns rather than params, which is correct given the empty schema.

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's purpose: an O(1) probe that returns package version, surface flags, registered tool count, and canonical tool names. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on test flows, releases, and authentication.

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 explicitly says to use this tool (or the blop://health resource) before heavier discovery or replay work, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies an alternative resource, giving context on positioning relative to other operations.

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