list_endpoints

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the return fields (method, path, title, etc.). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention rate limits or other constraints, but for a discovery tool the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 concise, with three sentences: the first states purpose and safety, the second lists return fields, and the third explains usage. It is front-loaded and contains 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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it lists what endpoints are returned and how to use the results. The filtering parameters are implied, and the completeness is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited additional value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, except by explaining the return fields which helps understand the filters. This justifies the baseline score.

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 discovers Virtuous API endpoints across the entire API. It specifies that it is read-only and lists the return fields (method, path template, title, read/write indicator, parameter names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_endpoint and describe_endpoint.

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 advises using the returned method+path with call_endpoint or describe_endpoint first, which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond these two tools, so some explicitness is missing.

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