endpoint_list

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

The [READ] prefix indicates a non-destructive read operation, which is valuable given no annotations are provided. However, the description lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any potential side effects, though for a simple list these are likely minimal.

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 two clear sections: a summary line and an Args list. Every sentence provides value; no redundancy.

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 covers the key aspects: what the tool returns, that it is a read operation, and the parameter's purpose. It could mention pagination or endpoint count limits but is complete enough for a basic list tool.

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. The Args section explains the 'target' parameter as 'Endpoint-management target name from config; omit for the default', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type info.

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 'List all managed endpoints' with a [READ] prefix, specifying the verb and resource. It lists the fields returned (id, hostname, OS, agent/patch, online), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like endpoint_get (single endpoint) or drift_report (report).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like endpoint_get or patch_status. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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