get_capabilities

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about what the tool actually does: it performs a connection check and reports implemented capabilities and compatibility limits. This is consistent with annotations and adds context beyond them, though it does not disclose error handling or timeout behavior.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'check connection' states the action, and 'report implemented capabilities and compatibility limits' states the output scope.

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, read-only introspection tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool checks and what it reports, and the annotations cover the safety profile. No essential information is missing.

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 parameter semantics are trivial. With an empty schema and 100% coverage, there is nothing the description needs to clarify; the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 uses specific verbs ('Check', 'report') and a clear resource: connection status, implemented capabilities, and compatibility limits. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it naturally from the thread, goal, and operation siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to verify connectivity or discover the server's capabilities and compatibility limits. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve this introspection role, so the context is clear.

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