technitium_endpoint_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but this is a low-risk read-only introspection tool whose behavior is largely implied by 'Show'. It does disclose what is returned (the parameter set for one endpoint), yet says nothing about error behavior for an unknown path or whether any prerequisites/auth apply.

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 tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and an inline example that earns its place. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal to the point of leaving useful routing context unsaid.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is legitimately omitted, and the one parameter is simple. However, for a discovery tool sitting alongside technitium_endpoints and technitium_call, the description omits the routing context that would make it complete.

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 schema coverage is 0% (the single 'path' parameter has no description), so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by clarifying that 'path' is an endpoint API path and showing the expected format ('/api/settings/set'), but it stops short of stating whether a full URL, leading slash, or query string is accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show every parameter for one endpoint') plus a concrete example path, so the agent knows it is a per-endpoint introspection tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling technitium_endpoints (which presumably enumerates endpoints), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of the obvious workflow (inspect with this tool, then invoke via technitium_call), and no comparison against technitium_endpoints. The example path hints at usage but no condition or alternative is stated.

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