Get BookStack 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific 'capabilities' and 'configuration' details are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence: 'Get information about available BookStack MCP capabilities and current configuration.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and efficiently conveys the essential information without waste.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete—it states what the tool does. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'capabilities' include) and return values. For a tool with zero parameters, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in clarifying the output.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, earning a high score for this dimension.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about available BookStack MCP capabilities and current configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('BookStack MCP capabilities and current configuration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_books' or 'get_shelves', which focus on content retrieval rather than system capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_books' or 'search_content'. Without such information, an agent might struggle to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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