get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds value beyond them by specifying the data source ('live registry') and that provenance/versions are returned, plus the optional/advisory nature of the call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the discovery purpose and followed by usage guidance. No filler, though the closing 'this lookup is optional' slightly restates the preceding clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so by naming tools, schemas, provenance and versions. Adequate for a zero-parameter read-only meta tool, though it could hint at response shape more concretely.

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 there is nothing for the schema to obscure and no parameter semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and enumerates the resources it returns: tools, input schemas, registered algorithm provenance and versions from the live registry. This clearly separates it from the domain calculation/render siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from the other meta tools (get_agent_protocol, recommend_workflow).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when available tools or parameters are unclear') and an explicit exclusion ('If the needed tool and its current schema are already available, call it directly; this lookup is optional'). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_agent_protocol or recommend_workflow.

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