Get SwOS Endpoint

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those hints: it decodes the payload into structured data and preserves unknown keys under '_raw'. It does not describe error cases or pagination, but with the strong annotation safety profile the description contributes enough meaningful 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 only two sentences and opens with an imperative verb for the intended action. Example endpoints are embedded, no filler words, and the key behavior about unknown keys comes in the final sentence. Every line is informative.

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 small read-only tool with two parameters and an enum, the description covers the essential message: fetch one endpoint, decode it, and handle unknown keys. It does not go into exact output shape or error scenarios, but no output schema exists and the annotations and latitude with the schema improve completeness. A short description of the return structure would bring it to a 5.

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 schema reports 100% description coverage for both parameters, including an explicit enumeration for endpoint and a note for routerId. The tool description adds endpoint examples and behaves for unknown keys ('_raw'), but those are not parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since structured schema data already carries the main payload.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch and decode a single SwOS .b endpoint' and clarifies the output format ('as structured data'). It lists many concrete endpoint examples (link.b, sys.b, poe.b, etc.), making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like list_swos_endpoints and write_swos_blob.

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 makes clear when to invoke it: when you need to retrieve a single endpoint's decoded value, with handling for unknown keys. However, it never names alternatives or explicitly states when not to use this tool, so while context is crisp, it lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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