ise_ers_list_endpoint

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Paginated') and that it returns ALL endpoints (no filtering mentioned), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what the response format looks like, whether there are rate limits, or whether this operation touches any system state. The absence of an output schema and the terse nature leaves the behavioral profile under-specified for a list tool.

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 appropriately minimal at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The 'Paginated' note is efficient. It gets 4 rather than 5 because the parameter descriptions in the schema carry most of the explanatory weight, and the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral detail beyond the minimal statement.

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?

For a list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but thin. The pagination behavior is noted, and the deployment targeting question is handled well. However, with no output schema and no description of the response format (which is significant for a paginated list potentially spanning many endpoints), the agent has no way to know what fields to expect or how to iterate pages. This is a meaningful gap for a complex enterprise 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% - only the deployment parameter has a description. The page and size parameters are self-explanatory with defaults, but the deployment parameter gets a thorough description in the schema itself, not in the tool description. The description's 'Paginated' tag adds minimal value beyond what the page/size parameters already imply. Neither the description nor schema explains the size limits or page semantics beyond defaults.

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 lists all Endpoints with pagination. The verb-resource combination (list + Endpoints) is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling list tools beyond the resource type, which is somewhat inherent in the naming convention used across all ise_ers_list_* siblings.

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 for listing all endpoints, which is clear context. The deployment parameter explanation does give guidance on when to use it ('Omit to use the only/default deployment') and points to ise_list_deployments for alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from search_endpoint or get_endpoint alternatives when a user needs a specific endpoint.

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