get_api_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what happens if the operation is omitted (returns all endpoints for an entity?), whether the tool returns raw OpenAPI-style specs or simplified descriptions, or what error behavior occurs for unknown entities. Minimal behavioral context beyond the literal purpose.

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 of 9 words. It's appropriately short but arguably under-specified for a tool that has valuable usage nuance (optional operation parameter, entity name conventions). Concise but not complete — though this dimension rewards brevity and front-loading, which it achieves.

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?

With 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is modest but basic. The absence of an output schema shifts burden to the description to indicate what an 'API endpoint specification' contains (URL, method, request/response shapes?), but it doesn't. For a tool with a large list of known entities and operations, some guidance about where these names come from would help. Adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented via extensive example lists in the schema itself. The description adds the phrase 'by entity and operation' which mirrors the parameters but adds little value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting with concrete examples.

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 states the verb 'Get' and resources 'API endpoint specification' filtered by entity and operation. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like get_table_schema and get_field by focusing on API endpoint specs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The 'by entity and operation' qualifier adds useful specificity.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't clarify when to use this over get_table_schema, get_field, or get_interaction_pattern. No mention of when 'operation' is required vs optional, or what happens if only entity is provided. The user must infer usage context from the parameter examples.

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