apidog_get_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what the tool returns ('complete operation object including parameters, request body, responses, examples, and all Apidog extensions') and the additional behavior of returning referenced component schemas. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and no side effects are hinted at, which is acceptable for a retrieval operation.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, return contents are summarized in one sentence, and the workflow guidance is kept separate. It is slightly longer than strictly minimal, but every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what the endpoint is, what the payload includes, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by enumerating the returned content categories.

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 both parameters well: 'path' has an explanatory description with an example, and 'method' has a full enum of allowed values. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameters themselves, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because 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 identifies the action ('Get full details') and the resource ('specific endpoint by method and path'), making the tool's purpose distinct from listing or searching endpoints. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'specific endpoint' phrasing plus the unique reference to Apidog extensions and component schemas differentiates it well enough.

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 explicit instruction 'ALWAYS use this before updating an endpoint to understand the existing format' provides clear context for when this tool should be invoked. It doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the 'before updating' workflow guidance is actionable and useful.

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