get_api_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Get information' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not state that the call has no side effects, whether the server must be running, what happens if it is not, or what the response contains.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource while staying short and readable.

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's simplicity (zero parameters), this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the vague term 'information' leaves the return value undefined; an agent cannot know whether it will receive a list of endpoint paths, HTTP methods, server status, or something else.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and no parameter-related information is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('the running API server and its endpoints'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like start_api_server and stop_api_server, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from test_connection.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings. The phrase 'running API server' implies the server should be started first, but it does not state this condition or mention alternatives such as test_connection for connectivity checks.

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