meta_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 it returns counts and a sample, implying a read-only introspection. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no side effects or whether it triggers a scan. Still, the intent is clear and sufficient for safe use.

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 short, focused sentences. The first sentence is a front-loaded question that immediately conveys purpose. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It fully explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and relationship to sibling meta_describe. Everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds only general context about returns (counts and sample) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with a clear question 'What does this server know how to call?' and specifies it returns counts and a sample of callable methods. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool meta_describe, clarifying this is an overview 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?

Directly states when to use: 'when the user asks what can you do? or before picking a specific method via meta_describe'. Provides clear context and an explicit alternative.

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