Client Capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key trait: capabilities come from 'verified protocol negotiation, not from the agent name,' which tells the agent the report is authoritative rather than heuristic. It does not state what happens on failed negotiation or that the call is side-effect free, keeping it short of a 5.

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 no filler: the first front-loads the purpose and the enumerated outputs, the second adds the sourcing caveat. The list of features is informative rather than padded, and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the reported capability fields, and a zero-param read tool needs nothing more on inputs. It stops short of describing failure modes or the shape of each reported value (e.g., transport enumeration), which would make it fully self-contained.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly focuses on the response fields instead of inventing input 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?

States a specific verb ('Reports') and resource ('which interaction features are available for the current MCP client/session'), then enumerates the exact features reported: elicitation, structured elicitation, transport, integration mode, and prompt-gate enforceability. This is unmistakably distinct from the prompt-oriented siblings rewrite_prompt and review_and_select_prompt.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should check this before relying on elicitation or enforcing a prompt gate, but there is no explicit 'use this when/when not' guidance and no mention of alternatives. The clause about derivation 'not from the agent name' hints at a precondition but does not frame a decision rule.

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