specify_api_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what the tool modifies, outputs, or requires as prerequisites (e.g., whether an ERD must already exist, or whether this mutates shared state). For what appears to be a workflow/project-management tool, the side effects are unclear.

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 single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately short for a 0-parameter tool, though it borders on under-specification given the opaque domain context.

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?

With 0 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it's quite thin. It doesn't explain output format, side effects, or reasoning flow. For a tool in a complex multi-step workflow with 22 siblings, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides no guidance. With schema coverage at 100% (trivially, since there are no params), the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 per the rules. The description adds no param-level detail, but there are no params to document, so nothing is missing.

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 "Specify API endpoints from requirements and ERD" names the verb and resource ('specify' + 'API endpoints') and identifies the source artifacts (requirements and ERD). However, the tool is split across many siblings in a reverse-engineering workflow, and the description doesn't distinguish it from related steps like design_erd or generate_tickets, nor does it clarify what 'specify' produces concretely (a spec doc? a file? a schema?).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With 21 siblings in the list, it doesn't indicate whether this should be run before implement_feature, after design_erd, or in what sequence. Context must be inferred entirely from the name and surrounding workflow.

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