vibemk_test_all_endpoints

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

The description implies a read-only availability check but does not explicitly state side effects or lack thereof. With no annotations, the description partially carries the transparency burden but leaves room for ambiguity about whether any modifications or background processes are triggered.

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 extremely concise and free of unnecessary detail, conveying the purpose in a single short phrase with a clarifying subtitle.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the broad purpose and expected behavior, though it could clarify what 'all endpoints' encompasses or what output the user should expect.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.

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 tests all API endpoints and performs a comprehensive availability check. It is distinguishable from related debugging tools, though 'all API endpoints' is somewhat broad.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_api_endpoints or test_direct_url. The description does not indicate whether this should be used for initial connectivity checks, troubleshooting, or routine validation.

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