capability_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool performs outbound calls (ping, list_tools, probe) and, importantly, that results are written to the local trust store — a side effect an agent would otherwise not anticipate. It omits failure/timeout semantics and whether the trust-store write is reversible, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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, no redundancy: the mechanism comes first, the side effect second, and the scope limitation last. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers mechanism and side effects for a zero-annotation tool. The one meaningful gap is the unexplained 'alias' parameter, which leaves the invocation less complete than it could be.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'alias' is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'a mounted server' only weakly implies that alias identifies which mounted server is being probed; the agent must infer format, source, and validity from the schema title alone.

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 gives a specific verb (smoke-test) and a specific resource (a mounted server), then enumerates the exact steps: ping, list_tools, and a single safe zero-argument probe. It is clearly distinct from the sibling set (search/consider/add/list/remove), which concern discovery and lifecycle rather than liveness checking.

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 states the use case (establishing liveness of a mounted server) and explicitly bounds it with 'This is a liveness check, not a security audit', telling the agent when not to expect security findings from it. It does not name a sibling alternative or a prerequisite condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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