endpoint_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation — nothing about scope, pagination, or filtering for what could be a long list.

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 with the action and returned fields, followed by a compact Args line. No filler sentences; every element earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and the single optional parameter is explained. It stops short of covering list size/pagination behavior, but for a simple read-list tool it is largely complete.

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% (the schema gives only 'string', default null), so the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains target is an endpoint-management target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That is meaningful guidance the schema lacks.

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+resource ('List all managed endpoints') and enumerates the returned fields, which implicitly separates it from single-endpoint siblings like endpoint_get and endpoint_health_score. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 '[READ] List' framing and the target parameter note imply the listing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as endpoint_get or overview.

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