Listar endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the tool returns a metadata index per endpoint (scope, key environment test/live/any, idempotency, credit cost) and instructs the agent to read the returned api_version field to confirm which doc version was served. Pagination or size limits are still undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the returned-field enumeration earns its length by telling the agent what the index contains. The field list is dense but functional; nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only index with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, returned content, version default, and how to verify the doc version from the response. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 100% and the single optional 'version' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default and the legacy caveat. The description only restates the v2 default, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Índice de todos los endpoints de la API pública de Automeli') and even enumerates the per-entry fields (method, path, summary, scope, key environment, idempotency, credit cost), so an agent immediately knows what it gets. It implicitly contrasts with get_endpoint by saying 'todos los endpoints', but never names that sibling or get_openapi explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

'Punto de partida para descubrir la API' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool instead of a detail lookup. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_endpoint, get_openapi) or stating exclusions, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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