list_twitterapi_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns endpoint names with HTTP method and path, which is expected for a listing tool. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, though these may be less critical for a read-only listing.

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 and well-structured with clear sections (USE THIS WHEN, CATEGORIES, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is a listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers usage guidance and return values. It could improve by mentioning that for detail on a specific endpoint, one should use get_twitterapi_endpoint, but overall it is adequately complete given the sibling tools.

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 input schema has one optional parameter with an enum. Schema description coverage is 100% (the schema description lists all values). The tool description adds a list of categories that mostly matches the enum, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The description implies the parameter is for filtering, which aligns with the schema.

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 lists all endpoints organized by category. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_twitterapi_endpoint (which retrieves a single endpoint) and search_twitterapi_docs (which searches documentation).

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 includes a 'USE THIS WHEN' section explicitly stating when to use the tool: to browse available endpoints or find endpoints by category. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context implies that for specific endpoint details one should use get_twitterapi_endpoint.

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