endpoint_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions it is a READ operation and returns a normalized shape, but omits details about error handling (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 concise with a clear label ([READ]) and structured argument list. No redundant information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool is simple (single endpoint retrieval), but the description lacks details about the output shape beyond 'normalised stable shape'. No output schema is provided, so more detail on the return format would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: endpoint_id is the id from endpoint_list (including uuid/mac), and target is an optional config name. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's type-only 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 retrieves one managed endpoint by id and normalizes it. It distinguishes implicitly from endpoint_list (list vs. single) but does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings.

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 indicates that the endpoint_id comes from endpoint_list and that target can be omitted for the default. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives like endpoint_assign_profile or session_list.

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