endpoint_get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and '[READ]' merely repeats it. The description does add genuine context with 'normalised to the stable shape' (a return-shape promise in the absence of an output schema) and the target-default behavior, but says nothing about not-found errors or auth requirements.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact args block; every element is functional. The redundant '[READ]' tag is the only waste, since the annotation already conveys read-only status.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the call mechanics and hints at the response shape. It stops short of describing failure modes, target resolution errors, or what 'stable shape' concretely contains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: endpoint_id accepts 'id (or uuid/mac)' and target is an endpoint-management target name from config with a documented default of omit-for-default. Only minor gaps remain, such as id format examples or validation behavior.

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 and resource ('One managed endpoint by id') plus the output guarantee ('normalised to the stable shape'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It references endpoint_list as the id source, giving implicit sibling separation, but never explicitly contrasts itself with that list tool.

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?

Usage is implied through 'endpoint_id ... as returned by endpoint_list', which tells the agent to obtain ids from the sibling list tool first. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or handling for a missing/invalid endpoint.

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