get_endpoint_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the kind of details returned (scope, token type, documentation excerpt), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The behavior is basically implied as safe, but not explicitly stated.

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 is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description usefully indicates what the return value includes (scope, token type, documentation excerpt). However, it lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., a valid path). For a simple get tool, this is mostly adequate but slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 it retrieves details for a specific API endpoint, including scope, token type, and documentation excerpt. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific API endpoint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_endpoints (listing) and get_document (document-level).

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 when needing endpoint details, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like list_endpoints or search_docs. There are no exclusions or context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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