Get Endpoint Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description aligns with them. It adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: substring matching, grouping by path, nested paths, and the ability to span applications.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, then return shape, then matching behavior. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete from an agent's perspective. It explains what will be returned, how matching works, and what the grouping will look like, without needing to restate schema details.

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 resource parameter is already described with examples. The description adds important semantic detail beyond the schema: matching is a substring, nested paths are included, and one query can span applications, clarifying scope significantly.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'See every operation on one resource at once, grouped by API path.' It immediately distinguishes itself from tools like get_endpoint by emphasizing that all verbs on a resource are returned together rather than one at a time.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: when you want all operations on a resource visible together, or when matching a path substring to find nested paths across applications. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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