List Endpoints (Action1)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific output fields (name, OS, etc.) and notes that 'fields="*" adds extended data', providing context beyond annotations. It does not negate any annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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?

Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core output fields and filter behavior but omits pagination, sorting, and continuation details (though these are in the schema). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning for filter parameters (stating they accept console values) and the fields parameter (extended data). However, it does not clarify other parameters like pagination or sorting beyond the schema. The added value is marginal.

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 it provides an 'inventory of managed endpoints' listing specific fields like name, OS, agent status, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'action1_get_endpoint' (single endpoint) and 'action1_list_organizations' (organizations).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for listing endpoints but provides no exclusions or comparisons to siblings. The hint about filter values referring to the console is helpful but not sufficient for a higher score.

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