list_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the "[READ]" tag merely restates it. The description does add useful context (it needs a configured portainer target), but gives no pagination, rate-limit, or response-shape detail.

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?

Front-loads the read tag and resource meaning, then the prerequisite, then args. The Args block is slightly boilerplate for a single optional param but nothing is wasted.

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 simple single-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the returned fields and the target requirement, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies the arg as a target name from config with a defined default when omitted. That meaning is absent from the bare schema property.

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 (list) and resource (Portainer endpoints), clarifies that endpoints are managed hosts, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, status, url). No sibling tool lists endpoints, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

"Requires a portainer target" gives a precondition, and the target arg note explains the default-omission behavior. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not framing or comparison to any alternative, leaving usage implied.

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