List API Endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by disclosing error behavior ('Returns error if the spec name has not been loaded yet') and pagination details (has_more, next_offset). It does not cover all nuances, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 well-organized with clear sections (summary, args, returns, examples, error handling), but it duplicates the schema's parameter documentation in the 'Args' block, adding redundancy. The first sentence effectively front-loads the purpose, yet the repeated descriptions make it longer than necessary.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It includes a detailed return structure, pagination semantics, examples, and error handling. It also implies a prerequisite (spec must be loaded) and guides progressive exploration. No critical missing context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, with all four parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds value through concrete usage examples and by reinforcing cross-references to sibling tools (e.g., 'use swagger_list_tags to see available tags' in the schema, which is echoed in the description). The Args section mostly duplicates schema, but the examples and error handling enrich parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'List all API endpoints (paths and HTTP methods) from a loaded OpenAPI spec, optionally filtered by tag.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swagger_list_tags, swagger_get_endpoint, and swagger_search. The scope and filter capability are specified upfront.

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 usage context: 'Use this tool to get a high-level overview of all available API operations' and suggests filtering for 'progressive exploration.' It gives concrete examples for when to use the tool with and without a tag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for detailed endpoints, though the sibling names hint at these alternatives.

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