describe_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: it returns base URL, auth style, route table, and OpenAPI schema only if the deployment publishes one, and it notes that route mismatches can be fixed via configuration. This enriches the agent's understanding of behavior beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when/how to use it. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the content of its return value (including the conditional OpenAPI schema), and provides deployment-specific guidance for fixing route mismatches. This exceeds the minimum needed for a 0-parameter read-only tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema fully documents the absence of arguments, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings.

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's purpose: to show server configuration and actual Hermes endpoints. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('how this server is configured and which endpoints Hermes actually has'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on discovering actual routes and OpenAPI schema, not just static status.

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 gives explicit guidance to 'Run this first against a new deployment', and explains that built-in route paths are conventional defaults that may need correction via environment variables. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., detect_routes) or state when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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