List endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: endpoints always terminate on port 8000, mappings reflect the machine they point at *now*, and key material is deliberately withheld from results — an output-content disclosure the agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource definition and ending on the most useful constraint (keys excluded). It is a sentence fragment whose second clause ('the machine each points at now') is slightly elliptical, but nothing is wasted.

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 no arguments, rich read-only annotations and a declared output schema, the only thing the description must supply is what an endpoint is and what the caller will and will not see. It covers both, so an agent can call this confidently without further context.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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 defines the resource precisely — stable HTTPS addresses on a machine's port 8000 that point to a machine — and explicitly scopes out keys, which separates it from get_endpoint_key. The listing verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, so it falls short of a full verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, and no mention of how it relates to create_endpoint or get_endpoint_key beyond the 'Never their keys' exclusion. The exclusion implies the sibling that should be used for keys, but the agent must infer the selection rule.

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