describe_endpoint

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, what constitutes 'details,' or the structure of the response. No side effects or edge cases are mentioned.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical details about parameters and return values. It is not a tautology like 'Process' but is still too minimal to be useful, earning a middle score.

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 low complexity (2 parameters) but missing parameter descriptions, missing output schema, and missing annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what inputs are needed, or how it fits with sibling tools. The description leaves the agent with almost no contextual information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has two required parameters (path and method) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what path and method mean or how they relate to 'details of a backend API.' The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for these parameters.

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 'Get details of a backend API' uses a specific verb and resource, but the resource is vague ('backend API' rather than 'endpoint' or 'route'). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_endpoints, which also deals with APIs/endpoints. Given the parameters (path and method), it clearly concerns a specific endpoint, but that is not made explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list_endpoints and generate_frontend_call are not referenced, and there is no stated context for when describe_endpoint is appropriate. The description simply states what it does without any usage scenarios or exclusions.

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