Get Endpoint Group

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It states that it returns a 'summary of every endpoint' and the purpose is to see all operations, which is a read operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or limitations (e.g., pagination). There is no contradiction, but the description could add more behavioral details.

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 a brief two-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and provides a clear explanation of the output in the second. It is concise with no unnecessary filler, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter well-documented, an output schema present, and no nested objects. The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output. However, it does not mention any limitations like pagination or rate limits, which could be relevant for a tool that returns a summary of many endpoints. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-documented in the schema with examples. The description adds examples of resource names ('networks', 'firewall', 'wifi') and clarifies that it is a 'path fragment', which is slightly more than the schema. However, the added value is minimal given the schema already provides examples.

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 tool's function: 'Get all CRUD operations for a resource' with specific verb 'Get' and resource examples. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on grouping operations by resource path, while siblings like 'get_endpoint' retrieve individual endpoints. However, it could be more explicit about the distinction from 'list_endpoints'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need all operations for a specific resource. It gives examples of resource names and explains the benefit of seeing all available operations at once. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling names and purpose are clear enough.

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