getEndpointDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval ('récupère') but doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe error behavior, permissions, or any limitations. It adds minimal context beyond what is already implied by the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly states the action, the target, and the type of details returned, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, high schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description provides a decent overview of what is returned. However, it uses 'etc.' without specifying the exact structure, error scenarios, or how it differs from closely related tools like getSchemas. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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 schema descriptions for path and method are clear and complete (100% coverage). The description itself doesn't add any extra meaning about how to provide these parameters; it only mentions the content of the response. Since the schema already documents the parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère les détails complets d'un endpoint spécifique' (retrieves complete details of a specific endpoint). It enumerates the content (paramètres, body, réponses, schémas) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listEndpoints (listing) or getSchemas (schemas only).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does; it doesn't mention when not to use it or which sibling tool might be better for a different scenario. The implied use case (wanting details for a specific endpoint) is present but not articulated.

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