list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content (paths, methods, summaries, operation IDs) and its read-only nature is clearly implied by 'list', but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior when the spec contains no endpoints.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the purpose and the source-of-input constraint are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though the second sentence could arguably fold into the first.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates what is returned, and all three parameters are covered by schema descriptions. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as empty or malformed specs.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the two optional filters. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., tag matching semantics or method case-sensitivity) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Extract and list') and resource ('API endpoints'), and it names the input source ('a previously parsed OpenAPI specification'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling parse_openapi. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with other siblings like generate_api_docs or test_api_endpoint.

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 phrase 'from a previously parsed OpenAPI specification' implies the prerequisite that parse_openapi must run first, which is useful sequencing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and it does not name any alternative sibling tool for related needs.

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