List SwOS Endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond these flags by specifying that it is introspection of the server's endpoint schema and that it will not perform a device call, which prevents misuse.

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?

Two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information: the endpoint scope, the decoded field names, the read-only nature, and the absence of device calls.

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?

This is a simple introspection tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and a clear description. The description fully explains what the user will get and what will not happen, making the tool well-specified for an agent.

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 single parameter routerId is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the default behavior when omitted. The description does not add parameter details, but it doesn't need to because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 verb 'List' and the resource ('SwOS/SwOS Lite .b API endpoints') along with the specific output ('decoded field names per endpoint'). It explicitly positions itself as read-only schema introspection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_swos_endpoint 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 conveys a clear context: use this tool to inspect supported endpoints and field names rather than making a device call. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'read-only schema introspection — no device call' phrasing gives enough guidance for selecting this tool over device-interaction tools.

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