sui_list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'env-override resolution,' which hints at configuration behavior, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. The description is adequate for a simple listing but lacks full 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the action and context. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains what the tool returns and one key use case. It lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of URLs) but is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. While the parameter 'network' has an enum in the schema, the description only says 'for a given network' without explaining it is optional or listing the accepted values. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 returns gRPC, GraphQL, and Archival URLs for a network after env-override resolution. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('URLs') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by addressing network endpoint listing rather than data queries.

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 provides context with 'Useful when deploying behind a self-hosted full node,' indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would improve clarity.

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