List API endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output as a curated, grouped catalog, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. The description is efficiently structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the output's nature (curated, grouped, not exhaustive). It is complete enough for the agent to understand what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no properties). The description adds meaning about the output (curated, grouped), which goes beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 returns a curated catalog of API endpoints, grouped, for the agent to know what api_request can call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like api_request (makes requests) and help (general help) by specifying the scope of what it lists.

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 explicitly notes that the list is curated and not exhaustive, giving context on when to rely on it versus potentially needing a full enumeration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide an alternative for exhaustive routes.

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