list_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. It mentions that endpoints are listed 'after fetching Swagger documentation', which adds some context about dependencies, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 single, efficient sentence that states the purpose clearly without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the core action first.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields), how it relates to siblings, and behavioral aspects like safety or dependencies. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate handling.

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 action ('List all available API endpoints') and the resource ('API endpoints'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'fetch_swagger_info' or 'get_endpoint_details', which likely have related but different purposes.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'after fetching Swagger documentation', but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_swagger_info' or 'get_endpoint_details'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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