describe_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return content in detail (method, path, parameters, request-body, mutation info), but doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any error scenarios. Still, it offers substantial transparency about what to expect.

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 sentence followed by a concise action directive. Every word adds value—no filler, no redundancy.

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 one parameter (well-described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (full specification) and when to use it. It could optionally mention that the output is a JSON object, but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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 input schema already provides a description for the sole parameter 'endpoint_name' with examples and a reference to list_endpoints. The tool description adds only usage advice ('Call this before call_endpoint'), not additional parameter semantics. Schema coverage is effectively 100% from the schema itself, so baseline 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 tool returns the full specification for a single endpoint, including method, path, parameters, request-body fields, and mutation info. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite to call_endpoint.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Call this before call_endpoint to know exactly what to pass.' This provides clear guidance on usage context relative to siblings.

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