get_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete documentation for an endpoint, which implicitly indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, required permissions, or any edge cases, leaving some behavioral aspects 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 fully described parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (full documentation) and the required inputs. It could be more explicit about the output format, but for a straightforward documentation lookup, this is sufficient.

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%, and both parameters ('method' and 'path') have descriptions. The description's phrase 'по методу и пути' (by method and path) adds little beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Возвращает' (returns) and the specific resource 'полную документацию конкретного эндпоинта' (full documentation of a specific endpoint). It is differentiated from sibling tools like list_endpoints and search_docs by focusing on a single endpoint by method and path.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you need full documentation for a specific endpoint, identified by method and path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose itself implies the appropriate usage scenario.

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