list_api_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core detection capability without explaining what 'detects' means in terms of output format, potential limitations, or whether the project must be loaded. No side effects, error conditions, or scope details are disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource upfront. It is efficient and well-structured, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 no output schema and the description does not describe the return value or result format, making it difficult for an agent to know what to expect. It also lacks guidance on interaction with loaded projects and how it relates to similar sibling tools. The description is too minimal for the tool's complexity and sibling differentiation.

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 input schema already describes the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning or constraints about how the parameter is used in detection. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 detects HTTP endpoints and specifies supported frameworks (Express, Fastify, Koa), which distinguishes it from framework-specific siblings like list_express_routers and analyze_api_endpoint. The verb 'Detects' is specific and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 Express/Fastify/Koa projects by listing these frameworks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_api_endpoint or framework-specific route listers. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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