rest_design_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool actually returns or produces, whether it writes files, or whether it is purely advisory. For a tool with no annotation safety signals, this is a significant gap.

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 words. It is appropriately concise, though the phrase 'proper' is slightly vague and could carry more specific meaning.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what form the 'design' takes, what the agent should expect as output, or how it relates to the broader endpoint generation/validation workflow.

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 four parameters adequately. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond linking the design concerns to parameters, so a baseline score 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 a specific action ('Design') and resource ('RESTful API endpoints') and names the key concerns: resource naming, HTTP methods, and status codes. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rest_generate_routes or rest_validate_conventions.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'Design' and the focus on naming/methods/status codes, suggesting a planning-stage tool. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rest_generate_routes or rest_validate_conventions.

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