list_endpoints

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool is offline and makes no upstream request, which strongly signals a non-mutating, network-free operation. It does not mention caching, pagination, or performance, but for a simple list catalog this is a notable level of transparency.

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?

Two short, dense sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, and the important offline/no-upstream-resource constraint is added second. There is zero filler or redundant detail.

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 it has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it says what the tool lists and that it is offline. The phrase 'evidence-backed dimensions known about it' is a little vague about the return structure, but for a catalog endpoint with no arguments it does not materially block an agent from invoking it.

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?

A parameterless tool has a 100% schema coverage by definition, and the description correctly does not need to explain parameters. With zero params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is no parameter semantics to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every catalogued endpoint') and adds what is known about it ('evidence-backed dimensions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as describe_endpoint, which target a single endpoint, and other data tools that hit a specific domain.

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 the tool is the go-to for a catalog overview and notes it makes no upstream request, which suggests it is cheap or offline. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer this over describe_endpoint or any alternative, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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