list_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly marks the operation as '[READ]' and lists the fields returned, indicating no destructive side effects. It also notes the requirement of a Portainer target, implying authentication context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus one Args line. It front-loads the key purpose and returns immediately, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what it returns (fields), what it requires (target), and how to use the parameter. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'target' parameter, but the description compensates fully by explaining: 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 '[READ] Portainer endpoints (managed hosts)' and lists the specific fields returned (id, name, type, status, url). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pods or list_containers, which target different resources.

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 specifies a prerequisite ('Requires a portainer target') and explains the target parameter, giving clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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