get_capabilities

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that capabilities are discovered dynamically, that new tools will automatically appear, and that the response contains editor, cli, and tool_categories sections. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' but the checking/availability framing makes that clear enough for a capability probe.

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 appropriately compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by usage context, a note on dynamic discovery, and a clear returns block. Every sentence contributes distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter capability-check tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains when to call it, what it checks, how dynamic discovery works, and what the response contains. Additional return-format detail would be redundant given the output schema.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on behavior and return structure instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check what O3DE MCP capabilities are currently available.' It clearly identifies this as a capability-discovery tool and distinguishes it from the long list of editor, project, and session tools by framing it as the first call to determine availability.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first' to determine editor connection and CLI availability. It also explains the benefit—'avoids wasting tokens on tools that will fail'—which tells an agent exactly why this should precede other operations. No alternatives exist for this discovery function, so no exclusion is needed.

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