listEndpoints

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the return is a 'résumé léger' (light summary) to save tokens, which is useful context. It also mentions the response includes HTTP methods and tags, providing a clear expectation without contradictions.

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 two concise sentences in French, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a note about token efficiency. No wasted words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and the nature of the returned summary. It could specify the exact structure of the returned data, but the mention of HTTP methods and tags provides enough context.

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%, as the 'tag' parameter is fully described in the input schema. The description itself adds no further explanation of the parameter, so 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 clearly states the tool lists all available endpoints with their HTTP methods and tags, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like getEndpointsByTag and searchEndpoints by explicitly saying 'tous les endpoints' (all endpoints).

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 getting an overview of all endpoints, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. With sibling tools like getEndpointsByTag and searchEndpoints, this could be clearer, but the purpose itself makes the primary use case evident.

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