get_endpoint_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation. It lacks behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., metadata, status). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., response structure), behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, it should do more to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 schema already documents the 'operationId' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for a 'specific endpoint', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific endpoint'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_endpoints' by focusing on a single endpoint, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_endpoints' which might also retrieve endpoint details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_endpoints' or 'search_endpoints'. It mentions 'specific endpoint' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing an operationId) or use cases (e.g., for debugging vs. general listing).

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