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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the filtering capability but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List all available Pocket Network endpoints') and adds the optional filtering detail without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the return format, pagination, error cases, or authentication needs, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively. While the purpose is clear, the behavioral and output details are missing, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional filtering by category, but doesn't provide additional context like valid category values or examples. With high schema coverage, the 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available Pocket Network endpoints'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_endpoint_details' or 'list_categories', which would require a 5.

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 through the phrase 'optionally filtered by category', suggesting it can be used for both unfiltered listing and filtered queries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_categories' or 'get_endpoint_details', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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