analyze_api_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals important behavioral details: the order of the call chain, validation libraries recognized, auth middleware inclusion, error handling via next(err), and resolution of mounted routers. This goes beyond a simple 'analyze' claim.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The first establishes the core purpose; the second adds a key behavior. No fluff or redundant phrases.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by enumerating the elements of the analysis (handler, service, repo, validation, auth, error handling). It doesn't specify the exact return format, but the essential behavior is communicated.

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 already fully describes both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by clarifying that 'path' is an endpoint path and that mounted routers are resolved, which aids interpretation of prefix paths.

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 specifies the tool's function: tracing the call chain of an API endpoint (handler → service → repo), with details on validation, auth middleware, and error handling. It distinguishes from siblings like list_api_endpoints by focusing on the internal flow rather than just listing endpoints.

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 clear context on when to use the tool—when a detailed understanding of an endpoint's execution chain is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the scope is well-defined, allowing an agent to infer applicability.

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